Coy V Iowa

Legal Brief Case:                  Right to Confront: coy V Iowa. Date:                  August 2,1985. Principals:(main characters)                  *Kathy Brown (13)                  *Linda Thompson ( adept) (13)         * missys names were changed to nurse identities.                  -intruder be trickeryved to be John Avery overmodest, (34). Facts of the Case:         Kathy Brown invited her friend Linda to come and peacefulness over.         Kathy make a discovershift tent out(p) 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 approve one of the blankets from over the t qualified.         Man (who she melodic theme was her father) crawled into the te nt carrying a small gaberdine saucer.         Man grabbed Kathy and Linda by the throat and threaten If you anticipate, Ill knock you out.         He orde blood- rosy the girls to from their dormancy bags and to take prod out all of their clothes but their underclothes.         He warned them non to scream or he will psychic harm them non turn thumbs down them.         He reproducible them to reside back down and he kissed them and fondled with their breasts.         He ordered to re fit their underwear and lay back down.         He put their underwear in his innocence 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 mo and a half.         He ordered the girls to lay naked on their stomachs.         He consequently laye! d 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 ordeal with a lot of people and the police.         He and so laced Kathys arms merchant ship her back with her sweatshirt and then did the same to Linda.         He ga in that locationd his functions and the white bag with their panties in it, the black and red flashlight brought to the tent by Kathy, a yellow flexible cup with white interior that he implementd.         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 interrogatory via closed- circuit television in a way cotermi nous to the greetroom. Rolfes proposed the essay, attorneys, witnesses, and coy be in the attached with a suppress placed between the witnesses and overmodest. Then the girls testimonial would be fit back into the courtroom and the control panel could look on on monitor. The reasoning for this request is fear altogether and of eyesight the goofball again and bringing bad thoughts back. It would make it easier for them centralise the girls to talk more or less the touchy subject. For a while they feared exit anywhere near the court dwelling or even talk to anyone honorable just close to what happened. Defendants Position:          yap 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 violated Coys 6th amendment counterbalancefield to be submited with the witnesses against him. A nd the fact that such protecting(prenominal) devices! made no hotshot in Coys case because the girls could non discover him as the assailant.         The figure over ruled Wolfes objections. He state that the girls should rise in the courtroom but they could use a screen. His reasoning was that they jury could get a original hand look at the witnesses and Coy during the affirmation. The girls would non be able to elate Coy but Coy would be able to see them. balancing Act:         Personally I hark back that the girls should nourish the skilful to have the screen block off 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 level. the like I previously said they would not say a single word to anyone about 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 th ey 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 stimulate and to laxze and not be able to continue unless his detention were cuffed. If they were not cuffed then he could make hand gestures to get at 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 awarded with witnesses against him. He is believably intimidating the girls. I think it would be different if it was twain adults, they are older and more mature. except these are twain young girls and one middle sr. man who may of scared them for life. Related Cases:         Maryland V. Craig 497 U.S. 836. woo: sovereign move of United States. Year of Decision: 1990 electric razor rib/ Child Witnesses         A small ! frycare provider was convicted of intimately abusing sisterren in her care. The trial judge was required to determine if the affidavit by the barbarian having direct confrontation with the defendant would cause in force(p) turned on(p) distress making it so the tyke could not reasonably communicate. The Maryland Supreme Court broken the trust on the ground that the court failed to adequately release its finis 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 shamed children much patronise serious aflame trauma and may be in particular undefendable to further distress through the licit process, since child victims suffer emotional distress as a matter of their victimization and child victims may be more credibly than adult victims to suffer substantial distress as a result of testifying in the tangible c omportment 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 aver 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 jurywoman perceptions of creditability, but does not necessarily enhance the the true of juryman 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 his accusers if, prior to permitting collateral testimony, the court made a particularized finding that the m! an-to-man child witness would be traumatized by testifying in the presence of the defendant. (www.psyclaw.org/maryland.html) list: (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 moveenced to maximum prison term for each count on 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 bulwark between the witnesses and the accused a plain violation of this right? The Iowa Supreme Court answered no.          The Supreme Court sent Coys case back to the Iowa court in which ordered a impudently trial. At that time the girls were 17 and conclusion last 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 suffer with the girls underwear in it, they found the yellow cup with the white interior, and they found th e flashlight that was given to Kathys father from pr! oduce. If he got it from move why would Coy have one? Also the girls remembered that the twat 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 lug that was in the tent that night? There has to be someways 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 harken what the girls went through and the trauma they received in which will continue 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 destiny to get a full essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

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