the witnesses against him.” U.S. Const. amend. VI. “The central concern of the
Confrontation Clause is to ensure the reliability of the evidence against a criminal
defendant by subjecting it to rigorous testing in the context of an adversary
proceeding before the trier of fact.” Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 845,110 S.
Ct. 3157, 3163, 111 L. Ed. 2d 666, 678 (1990).
While face-to-face confrontation
is preferred, it is not required in every instance where testimony is admitted
against a defendant. Id. at 847-48, 110 S. Ct. at 3164, 111 L. Ed. 2d at 680. In
Craig, the Court recognized that a state‟s interest in “protecting child witnesses
from the trauma of testifying” in the presence of a defendant, is sufficient to
abrogate the defendant‟s right to confront witnesses face-to-face. Id. at 855, 110
S. Ct. at 3169, 111 L. Ed. 2d at 685; see also U.S. v. Quintero, 21 F.3d 885, 892
(9th Cir. 1994) (concluding defendant‟s confrontation rights were not violated by
non-victim child witness‟s testimony via closed-circuit television where trial court
specifically found that testifying in court would be traumatic for witness); Marx v.
State, 987 S.W.2d 577, 580-81 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (upholding testimony via
closed-circuit television by non-victim child witness where trial court made finding
that procedure was necessary to protect witness from significant emotional
trauma).
Three main rights may be claimed by Cuevas under the Confrontation Clause: (1)
testimony under oath, (2) cross-examination by his counsel, and (3) the right to have the
jury observe the witness‟s demeanor. State v. Rupe, 534 N.W.2d 442, 444 (Iowa 1995);
accord Craig, 497 U.S. at 845-46, 110 S. Ct. at 3163, 111 L. Ed. 2d at 678. None of
these rights was infringed here. The judge‟s colloquy with the girls established that they
each understood the importance of telling the truth and promised to do so. Cuevas,
through his counsel, vigorously cross-examined each child. The jury had a full
opportunity to observe the girls‟ demeanor because the jury viewed their testimony, live,
over closed-circuit television. See State v. Shearon, 660 N.W.2d 52, 55 (Iowa 2003).