UPDATES & ANALYSIS

Iowa Constitution mandates face-to-face confrontation by witness, Iowa Supreme Court rules

by Rox Laird | July 11, 2024

A defendant’s right under the Iowa Constitution to confront witnesses at trial is not satisfied by one-way video testimony where the witness testifying on camera is not able to see the defendant, the Iowa Supreme Court held in a 4-3 ruling handed down June 28. In reaching that conclusion, the Court declined to follow a U.S. Supreme Court precedent and overruled one of its own prior rulings.

One-way video testimony is “inconsistent with the truth-telling function of face-to-face confrontation,” the Court said, noting that most adults and many children understand it is more difficult to tell a lie about a person to his face than behind his back.

“Under the Iowa Constitution, Iowans who are accused of crimes are guaranteed the right to confront witnesses who testify against them at trial,” Justice David May wrote for the Court. “At the time when the Iowa Constitution was adopted, this confrontation right was understood to mean that the accused must be able to confront trial witnesses face-to-face. The Iowa Constitution guarantees that same protection today.”

Justice May’s opinion for the majority was joined by Justices Christopher McDonald, Matthew McDermott, and Dana Oxley. Chief Justice Susan Christensen filed a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Edward Mansfield and Thomas Waterman.

The Court reversed the child abuse conviction of Derek White by an Osceola County jury and remanded the case for a new trial.

Two of White’s sons, ages 8 and 10, testified against him at trial where White was tried for abuse of his live-in girlfriend’s 2-year-old son with spankings that left extensive bruises. The trial court allowed the one-way video testimony based on an expert witness’ testimony that testifying in front of White would be traumatic for the boys. The two testified by closed-circuit TV from the judge’s chambers accompanied by the judge, the defense and prosecution attorneys, and a court reporter. White and the jury remained in the courtroom.

On appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court, White argued the one-way video testimony violated his right of confrontation under the Iowa Constitution, Article I, Section 10, which states, in part, “In all criminal prosecutions, and in cases involving the life, or liberty of an individual the accused shall have a right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him . . . .”

The Court said that when Iowa’s constitution was adopted in 1857 the word “confrontation” was understood to mean a face-to-face encounter based on a contemporary dictionary definition. Iowa Supreme Court decisions dating back to 1869 held that under the Iowa Constitution, the accused “has the right to see the witnesses against him, face to face.”

The Court has made certain exceptions, however.

In a 1981 decision, the Court rejected a challenge to placement of a blackboard between a witness and defendant, deciding the case without reaching the constitutional question. But the opinion approvingly quoted a 1974 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said the confrontation right did not include “the idle purpose of gazing upon the witness, or of being gazed upon by him.”

“We disavow the comments just quoted,” Justice May wrote. “The ability of trial witnesses to see the accused is hardly an ‘idle purpose.’ Rather, as explained, the ability of the witness to see the accused is essential to a face-to-face confrontation. And so we reject any procedure that prevents trial witnesses from being able to see the accused.”

The Court also parted company with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1990 decision in Maryland v. Craig, which held the U.S. Constitution’s Sixth Amendment confrontation clause does not forbid testimony on one-way closed-circuit TV by a child witness in a child abuse case provided there is a case-specific finding of its necessity.

Because that decision expresses a “preference” for face-to-face confrontation, not a guarantee, Justice May wrote, “our understanding of the Iowa Constitution cannot be harmonized with Craig’s view of the Federal Constitution, [and] we decline to adopt Craig’s approach for purposes of the Iowa Constitution.”

Finally, the Court overruled its 1989 decision, In re J.D.S, in which the Court, focusing on the federal rather than the Iowa Constitution, held that the use of a one-way mirror in a child-abuse prosecution did not violate the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause. That decision, nonetheless, stated that the defendant’s right was not violated “under the federal or Iowa constitutions.”

“Contrary to our statement in J.D.S., the Iowa Constitution does not permit one-way mirrors or other procedures that prevent witnesses from seeing the accused,” Justice May wrote. “As to that statement, J.D.S. reflects a demonstrably erroneous view of the Iowa Constitution. Therefore, as to that statement, we must overrule J.D.S.”

Writing in dissent, Chief Justice Christensen disagreed with the majority’s reversal of White’s conviction and holding that one-way video testimony in such cases is unconstitutional.

“Derek White was convicted of two forms of child abuse for the severe beatings he administered to the two-year-old son of his live-in girlfriend,” the Chief Justice wrote. “White’s own sons — aged eight and ten — were key witnesses in the case. Not surprisingly, the two boys were terrified by the prospect of testifying about their father’s beatings in his physical presence.”

Chief Justice Christensen also disagreed with overruling the Court’s ruling in J.D.S., and departing from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Craig.

And, she faulted the majority for failing to prescribe what form of testimony is required by the Iowa Constitution.

“White contends that only in-person confrontation satisfies the Iowa Constitution. Meanwhile, the majority concludes that the use of a one-way video system violates the Iowa Constitution, but it does not decide whether a two-way video system complies with the Iowa Constitution. In short, the majority is not giving White what he asks for while also guaranteeing another appeal if he gets less than he asks for.”

Tags: Iowa Supreme Court 2023-24