The Act makes some new rules for remote location testimony. Changes notice requirements and requirements related to facilities and technology for motions to allow remote location testimony.
Since the statute already allows for remote testimony, which is questionable under the Sixth Amendment, it might strengthen it’s compliance with the Sixth Amendment if it defined what a “reliable facility” would be as in the local courthouse or law office, someplace they can’t be coached in answering questions.
The Sixth Amendment provides that a person accused of a crime has the right to confront a witness against him or her in a criminal action . This includes the right to be present at the trial (which is guaranteed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 43 ). As well as the right to cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses.
The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause guarantees the right to confront witnesses in person or face-to-face during criminal prosecutions. The Supreme Court has ruled that the person who performed a forensic test must testify at trial, and testimony from a different forensic analyst from the same lab generally does not satisfy the Sixth Amendment’s requirements. This suggests that remote witnessing, if it involves testimony or evidence from a witness not present in the courtroom, may not fully comply with the Confrontation Clause.
EMAIL COMMITTEE
Rep.JasonKropf@oregonlegislature.gov
Rep.WillyChotzen@oregonlegislature.gov
Rep.KimWallan@oregonlegislature.gov
Rep.TomAnderson@oregonlegislature.gov
Rep.FarrahChaichi@oregonlegislature.gov
Rep.RickLewis@oregonlegislature.gov
Rep.KevinMannix@oregonlegislature.gov
Rep.ThuyTran@oregonlegislature.gov
I would argue that a video cross examination fulfills the requirement of having the defendant be able to see his/ her accuser.
The witness is in a secure room with closed circuit tv of the courtroom with sound, and the defendant has visual and auditory access to the witness.
I believe that is the definition of the ability to confront your accuser.