Read the “factual scenario” identified below, and then read the “required legal principles” included below.
Consider the “factual scenario” presented, along with the “required legal principles” provided. Using the “required legal principles,” provide your opinion as to whether the remote procedures mentioned in the “factual scenario” protect or violate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment confrontation clause rights.
Be sure to provide a thorough explanation for your opinion, based on the facts and legal principles provided.
Your original response should also include suggestions for how the procedures need to be changed to protect the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights if they need to be changed at all.
Alignment of factual scenarios with the required legal principles
After reading the Factual scenarios and the legal requirements presented, I came to a certain conclusion. There are certain points in the factual passage that defy the legal requirements.
The factual circumstance defies the required legal requirements since the court there allows for distant testimony from witnesses and the presentation of evidence by prosecutors, which is against the required legal regulations. The “Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment”, which the “Fourteenth Amendment” expanded to the States, states: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him” (Grove, 2019). In an earlier statement that was passed by the US Supreme Court, it said that “the “Confrontation Clause” guarantees the defendant a face-to-face meeting with witnesses appearing before the trier of fact”. This opinion is supported by the Court’s elucidation of the historical setting and phrasing of the Clause.
My honest opinion is that the necessary legal concept is sound because this face-to-face meeting is happening without any problems, such as those that may arise in a real-world scenario, such as an equipment malfunction or an electrical breakdown. The “Confrontation Clause” was built on the principles of both Roman and English common law, which guaranteed criminal defendants the opportunity to confront their accusers and upheld the right to cross-examination (Gajarawala & Pelkowski, 2021). The Supreme Court acknowledged that direct contact strengthens the credibility of fact-finding by lowering the likelihood that a witness may accuse someone innocent in error. Its goal is to stop someone from being found guilty only based on written evidence without having the opportunity to confront their accuser in person or go through a jury trial.
Face-to-face conflict arises “the core of the values furthered by the “Confrontation Clause”, the court has nevertheless recognized that is not the sign of the confrontation right”.
Grove, T. L. (2019). The Supreme Court’s Legitimacy Dilemma. The Supreme Court’s Legitimacy Dilemma, 132.
Gajarawala, S. N., & Pelkowski, J. N. (2021). Telehealth benefits and barriers. The Journal for Nurse Practitioners, 17(2), 218-221.