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?

I’m all for due process, with limits. You are right, it is tough to sort out.

Interestingly, last year Judge Padilla held an evidentiary hearing into the possible trauma that the two girls, who were 4 and 5 at the time of the abuse, might face.

There’s the limit.

I like the idea of having a judge or someone else ask the (written) questions.