Testimony over Zoom and other remote technologies during a trial that is against the will of a defendant violates the U.S. Constitution’s 6th Amendment, according to a ruling by the state's high court.
After four months of consideration, the Missouri Supreme Court decided in favor of a defendant accused of raping his girlfriend’s teenaged daughter, who objected to a witness testifying remotely.
“Smith argues Hall's two-way live video feed testimony at trial violated his right to confrontation and due process under the United States Constitution and the Missouri Constitution,” the Missouri Supreme Court ruled en banc on Jan. 11. “Smith properly preserved this issue for appeal by objecting to Hall's virtual testimony and including the issue in his motion for new trial.”
Missouri Supreme Court justices held oral arguments in State of Missouri v Rodney A. Smith on Sept. 15, 2021.
“It encourages the courts to make every effort so that they can have safe in-person trials that preserve the rights of confrontation but that don't put people at risk for their health,” said attorney and professor Chad Flanders, who co-wrote an amicus brief on behalf of eight Saint Louis University School of Law professors and 14 law professors nationwide.
Smith allegedly never had the opportunity to confront the lab technician whose remote testimony at trial connected swabs of Smith’s DNA found in the sexual assault examination.
“In the event of another pandemic or other unprecedented event, the court does discuss either you continue until circumstances permit in-person trials or you could also do depositions, which would allow for some confrontation and ability to cross examine the witness in-person but it's pretty clear that video testimony is not okay,” Flanders told the St. Louis Record.
According to Flanders’ May 25 ‘friend of the court’ brief, DNA technician Eric Hall was unable to appear in court to testify in the case against Smith, the accused, because Hall was on leave during the trial dates. Flanders' brief was written in support of Smith.
“The defendant has the right to insist on confrontation,” Flanders added. “The court can’t just require that they do a deposition rather than in person. The defendant gets to say that they want in-court and not a substitute for that.”
The Sixth Amendment provides for the right of criminal defendants to know who their accusers are as well as the details of the accusations and evidence.