Overview
Maryland v. Craig addressed whether the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment categorically requires a child witness in a child abuse case to testify in the physical presence of the defendant. The Supreme Court held that, while face-to-face confrontation is preferred, it is not an absolute requirement if necessary to protect child witnesses from trauma and the reliability of testimony is otherwise assured.
Case Background and Procedural History
- Sandra Ann Craig was charged and convicted in Maryland for child sexual abuse, with child witnesses testifying via one-way closed-circuit television due to emotional distress concerns.
- Maryland law allowed this procedure upon a finding of serious emotional distress preventing reasonable communication in the courtroom.
- The trial court found necessity based on expert testimony and permitted the special procedure; Craig was convicted.
- The Maryland Court of Special Appeals affirmed the conviction, but the Maryland Court of Appeals reversed, finding the State's showing insufficient under Coy v. Iowa and requiring more specific findings regarding the effect of the defendant's presence.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning and Holding
- The Confrontation Clause's main purpose is reliable, adversarial testing of evidence, ensured by oath, cross-examination, and observation of demeanor.
- Face-to-face confrontation, though central, is not absolutely required by the Clause; exceptions may be made for important public policies if testimony's reliability is otherwise secured.
- Maryland's interest in protecting child witnesses from trauma is sufficiently important, provided the State makes a case-specific showing of necessity.
- The procedure ensures other confrontation elements (oath, cross-examination, observation) and thus does not violate the Clause if properly applied.
- The necessity finding must be individualized to the child and focused on trauma caused by the defendant's presence, not just the courtroom setting.
- The Court rejected the Maryland Court of Appeals' requirement for direct observation of the child in the defendant's presence and for exploring less restrictive alternatives as constitutional prerequisites.
Dissent (Justice Scalia)
- The dissent argued that the Confrontation Clause guarantees an unqualified right to face-to-face confrontation, not subject to policy balancing.
- Concerns were raised about the reliability of child testimony and the potential for wrongful convictions without in-person confrontation.
- The dissent criticized the majority for subordinating clear constitutional text to public policy concerns and for stretching confrontation-era precedents.
Legal Standards and Requirements Established
- Denial of face-to-face confrontation is constitutionally permitted only when necessary to further an important state interest and with strong assurances of reliability.
- A case-specific, individualized finding of necessity by the trial court is required; generalized trauma is insufficient.
- The special procedure may be used if the child would otherwise be unable to communicate due to serious emotional distress from the defendant's presence.
Decisions
- Face-to-face confrontation is not an absolute right under the Confrontation Clause when an individualized finding of necessity is made.
- Maryland’s procedure is constitutional if applied with proper case-specific findings and if other confrontation elements are preserved.
Action Items
- TBD – Maryland Trial Court: On remand, make a case-specific finding of necessity per the Supreme Court’s clarified standard if the one-way television procedure is to be used again.