that allegedly justified the extraordinary procedure [the use of the screen] in the ‘trauma’ present case. That face-to-face presence may, unfortunately, upset the truthful rape victim or abused child; but by the same token it may confound and undo the false accuser, or reveal the child coached by a malevolent adult. It is a truism that constitutional protections have costs.” (Id. at p. 1020.) also emphasized that face-to-face confrontation plays an essential role in Coy ensuring the defendant receives a fair trial, which the high court in later referred to Craig as strong symbolic purpose” served by requiring adverse witnesses at trial to testify “the in the presence of the accused: is something deep in human nature that regards “[T]here face-to-face confrontation between accused and accuser as to a fair trial in a ‘essential criminal prosecution.’ [Citation.] . . . The phrase still persists, me in the eye and ‘Look say that.’” (Coy, 487 U.S. at pp. 1017-1018; 497 U.S. at p. 847.) supra, Craig, supra, perception that confrontation is essential to fairness has persisted over the centuries “The because there is much truth to it. . . . It is always more difficult to tell a lie about a person his face’ than his back.’ . . . The Confrontation Clause does not, of course, ‘to ‘behind compel the witness to fix his eyes upon the defendant; he may studiously look elsewhere, but the trier of fact will draw its own conclusions.” (Coy, at p. 1019.) supra, declined to determine whether there were any exceptions to the right to Coy confrontation, given that the trial court made no findings” that the “individualized child witnesses needed any protection.” (Coy, 487 U.S. at p. 1021.) An supra, “special Iowa statute authorized the use of the screen to block the defendant’s and the witnesses’
‘trauma’ that allegedly justified the extraordinary procedure [the use of the screen] in the present case. That face-to-face presence may, unfortunately, upset the truthful rape victim or abused child; but by the same token it may confound and undo the false accuser, or reveal the child coached by a malevolent adult. It is a truism that constitutional protections have costs.” (Id. at p. 1020.) Coy also emphasized that face-to-face confrontation plays an essential role in ensuring the defendant receives a fair trial, which the high court in Craig later referred to as “the strong symbolic purpose” served by requiring adverse witnesses at trial to testify in the presence of the accused: “[T]here is something deep in human nature that regards face-to-face confrontation between accused and accuser as ‘essential to a fair trial in a criminal prosecution.’ [Citation.] . . . The phrase still persists, ‘Look me in the eye and say that.’” (Coy, supra, 487 U.S. at pp. 1017-1018; Craig, supra, 497 U.S. at p. 847.) “The perception that confrontation is essential to fairness has persisted over the centuries because there is much truth to it. . . . It is always more difficult to tell a lie about a person ‘to his face’ than ‘behind his back.’ . . . The Confrontation Clause does not, of course, compel the witness to fix his eyes upon the defendant; he may studiously look elsewhere, but the trier of fact will draw its own conclusions.” (Coy, supra, at p. 1019.) Coy declined to determine whether there were any exceptions to the right to confrontation, given that the trial court made no “individualized findings” that the child witnesses needed any “special protection.” (Coy, supra, 487 U.S. at p. 1021.) An Iowa statute authorized the use of the screen to block the defendant’s and the witnesses’
E064206.DOCX