⚖️ 👶 In the recent U.S. Supreme Court case Pitts v. Mississippi, the Court reaffirmed that your Sixth Amendment constitutional rights cannot be sidelined by “mandatory” state statutes. The decision serves as a critical reminder for criminal defense practitioners: the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause is the gold standard for a fair trial. This case is critical to know if you handle child abuse cases.
The Core Issue: Confrontation vs. Convenience
The case involved a Mississippi law that granted child witnesses a “right” to testify behind a screen, obscuring their view of the defendant. The trial judge allowed the screen without hearing specific evidence of necessity.
➡️ The US Supreme Court’s verdict? Any state law—even one intended to protect victims—cannot override the Federal Constitution. A court cannot rely on “generalized findings” from a legislature. It must “hear evidence” and make an individualized determination that a shield (or other type of blocking measure) is necessary to prevent trauma that would impair the child’s ability to communicate.
Physical Screens = Constitutional Deviations: Whether it is a physical screen in the courtroom or a remote video feed, both are deviations from the Sixth Amendment and require the same rigorous evidentiary hearing.
🍑 Why This Matters in Georgia
Georgia has a law about this – OCGA 17-8-55. While it includes a framework for remote testimony, the new Pitts case underscores that these procedures are not just “best practices”—they are constitutional requirements. So make your judge go through them.
Remember to object as a violation of the confrontation clause, due process, and also cite this case. Or, just simply remind the prosecutor of this case. But if you handle child abuse, child molestation, or child sex trafficking cases, you need to have this case with you in court.
Full Opinion here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1159_k536.pdf
Leave a Reply