re: #56 KGxvi

Here’s the thing… if the defendant in a case like that was represented by counsel, and the victim was called as a witness by the prosecution, there’s no question that defense counsel should be allowed to cross-examine the victim. I’m not sure there is an argument that would rightly prohibit a pro per defendant from cross-examining the victim. Procedural due process is about the rights of the accused to put forward a defense and denying them the right to cross-examine the accuser seems like a denial of fundamental due process.

I don’t like the outcome, but I don’t see what the alternative is. (That said, I am not opposed to courts prohibiting testimony from minors). I think there are procedural safeguards that can be put in place - such as requiring the defendant to submit all questions to the judge before cross-examination, or even having the judge be the one to ask the questions. Perhaps appointed counsel for the cross?

Testimony from minors is an interesting question. I well remember the Satanic Panic of the 1980s, and how a number of people who were probably totally innocent got convicted of horrific crimes based on the mistaken belief that ‘kids don’t lie!’.