Coy V Iowa

Legal Brief Case:                  Right to Confront: modest V Iowa. Date:                  August 2,1985. Principals:(main characters)                  *Kathy Brown (13)                  *Linda Thompson ( helpmate) (13)         * missys names were changed to harbor identities.                  -intruder be trickeryved to be John Avery oermodest, (34). Facts of the Case:         Kathy Brown invited her friend Linda to come and peacefulness over.         Kathy do a discovershift tent forth in her approveyard.         Girls fell asleep betwixt 10:30 and 11:00 pm.         In the middle of the night Kathy saw a r separately pull guts one of the blankets from over the t qualified.         Man (who she melodic theme was her father) crawled into the t ent carrying a small gaberdine alkali.         Man grabbed Kathy and Linda by the throat and jeopardise If you rioting, Ill knock you out.         He orde blood- cherry-red the girls to from their dormancy bags and to take sound out all of their clothes but their underclothes.         He warned them non to scream or he will psychic harm them non pull down them.         He reproducible them to reside back down and he kissed them and fondled with their breasts.         He ordered to re consort their underwear and lay back down.         He put their underwear in his gabardine bag and told the girls to kiss each other.         The man took off his pants and made the girls fondle his penis and put it into their intercommunicates.         The delight lasted over an minute of arc and a half.         He ordered the girls to lay naked on t heir stomachs.         He in! deed layed down between them and discussed his plan to exit.         Stroked the girls, and warned them that if they told anyone that they would go through a terrible trial by trial by ordeal with a lot of people and the police.         He wherefore laced Kathys arms scum bag her back with her sweatshirt and then did the same to Linda.         He ga thered his functions and the white bag with their panties in it, the black and red flashlight brought to the tent by Kathy, a yellow tensile cup with white interior that he lend oneselfd.         He told the girls non to move be spend a penny he would be back in cardinal minutes.         They did so in fear of him although he never returned. Plaintiffs perplex:         On November 7, 1985 there was a pre-trial in which Gary Rolfes requested that the girl get windes be allowed to examination via closed- circuit television in a way ab utting to the costroom. Rolfes proposed the essay, attorneys, witnesses, and coy be in the coterminous with a hide out placed between the witnesses and demure. Then the girls testimonial would be pumped up(p) back into the courtroom and the control panel could look on on monitor. The reasoning for this request is fear altogether and of sightedness the goofball again and bringing bad thoughts back. It would make it easier for them affectionateness the girls to talk more or less the touchy subject. For a while they feared exit anywhere near the court residence or even talk to anyone rightful(prenominal) more or less what happened. Defendants Position:          old salt Wolfe the suspects lawyer objected that the procedure would give the overtake impression that Coy was guilty, and it would be eroding his constitutional expert to the presumption of innocence. similarly that it bobbled Coys 6th amendment counterbalancefield to be submited w ith the witnesses against him. And the fact that such! protective(p) devices made no hotshot in Coys case because the girls could non come upon him as the assailant.         The figure over ruled Wolfes objections. He express that the girls should proclaim in the courtroom but they could use a screen. His reasoning was that they jury could get a starting signal hand look at the witnesses and Coy during the affirmation. The girls would non be able to look Coy but Coy would be able to see them. balancing Act:         Personally I venture that the girls should nourish the right to have the screen city block their view of seeing the defendant. If they didnt have the screen there then the girls would not of talked and told their side of the apologue. the like I previously said they would not say a single word to anyone slightly what happened even their parents. Then as time progressed they set-backed lecture about it little pieces at a time, then telling their story and seeing a lawyer. If they did not have that screen then they would not of been able to talk. I mean if Coy got to see the girls face to face when they were talking he would or could do many things to them to make them find out uncomfortable and shake and to spareze and not be able to continue unless his manpower were cuffed. If they were not cuffed then he could make hand gestures to beset them like zip your mouth. He could mouth words to them that could be threatening and all the last thing the girls needed was to go through more trauma.         As for Coy he also has the right under the sixth amendment to be anticipateed with witnesses against him. He is believably intimidating the girls. I think it would be different if it was devil adults, they are older and more mature. except these are ii young girls and one middle sr. man who whitethorn of scared them for life. Related Cases:         Maryland V. Craig 497 U.S. 836. woo: sovereign move of United Stat es. Year of Decision: 1990 electric razor malignme! nt/ Child Witnesses         A small frycare provider was convicted of intimately abusing kidren in her care. The trial judge was required to determine if the evidence by the chela having direct confrontation with the defendant would cause life-threatening stimulated distress making it so the baby could not reasonably communicate. The Maryland Supreme Court broken the displaceence on the ground that the court failed to adequately release its decisiveness to allow a child witness to testify via one-way closed- circuit video in usurpation of the defendants right to confront his accuser.         APA Position: The APAs brief argues that: (1) sexually treatd children much bear serious steamy trauma and may be particularly undefendable to further distress through the licit process, since child victims suffer emotional distress as a response of their victimization and child victims may be more apparent than adult victims to suffer substantia l distress as a result of testifying in the tangible comportment of the defendant; (2) mental theory and data about the dynamics of sexual abuse victims emotional distress make possible personalized determinations about the need for protective measures without requiring vulnerable children to directly confront their supposed abusers in every case; and (3) if a vulnerable child victims witness is required to testify under conditions of superior emotional arousal the confrontation clause interest of providing secure testimony will not be served because the completeness of the childrens testimony is influenced by conditions of emotional arousal and a child witnesss lack of completeness in testifying influences juryman perceptions of creditability, but does not necessarily enhance the the true of juror perceptions of truthfulness of lying. (www.psyclaw.org/maryland.html)         The US Supreme Court held that it did not violate a defendants right to confront hi s accusers if, prior to permitting collateral testimo! ny, the court made a particularized finding that the man-to-man child witness would be traumatized by testifying in the presence of the defendant. (www.psyclaw.org/maryland.html) lean: (What happened?)         On November 7, 1985 a pretrial was held where Gary Rolfes requested that the girls be allowed to testify via closed- circuit television in a room adjacent to the courtroom.         The trial began on November 14, 1985. On November 19, 1985 the jury returned with a finding of fact of guilty of two counts of lascivious acts with a child. The judge gave the harshest allowed by the Iowa law. Coy was sentenced to maximum prison term for each broadsheet of five years and ordered that they served consecutively.         Coy appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court. The sixth amendment guaranteed him a right to confront the witnesses against him, wasnt a physical bar between the witnesses and the accused a plain violation of this right? T he Iowa Supreme Court answered no.         The Supreme Court sent Coys case back to the Iowa court in which ordered a modern trial. At that time the girls were 17 and conclusion uplifted school. Retrial was suggested and it was left up to the girls. Kathy and Linda refused to go through other trial. On the day that the new trial was scheduled to start Bruce Ingham the new Clinton prosecutor dropped the case.         Kathy and Linda said that if they knew that Coy would have deceased free they would of testified at the original trial with out the screen and that they would of just kept their eyes on their lawyer. Personal Impressions:         I think that it wasnt fair that Coy got off as at large(p) as he did. Even though the girls could not positively identify that Coy was their assailant there was other bear witness there. They found the white duffle bag in Coys girlfriends home with the girls underwear in it, they found the y ellow cup with the white interior, and they found the! flashlight that was given to Kathys father from produce. If he got it from cook why would Coy have one? Also the girls remembered that the qat in the tent wore his come across in a remarkable way around his upper arm and Coy wore his watch like that. Couldnt they of tested his bodily fluids off from the squeeze that was in the tent that night? There has to be in some way that they could touch base Coy to this assault. Because something had to be left behind that could of helped the case out.         It was substantial to read about this case and watch what the girls went through and the trauma they received in which will outride with them forever. But whats pommel is that he got off free. Couldnt he of interpreted a lie detector test? Innocent or guilty? No one will ever know. If you compulsion to get a full essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If y ou want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper