Original Case Details
A man convicted of Criminal Sexual Conduct won a legal victory on a constitutional issue in the Michigan Supreme Court recently. The issue decided by the Michigan Supreme Court was whether a defendant in a criminal case has the ability to decide whether remote testimony can be allowed in a trial. The Michigan Supreme Court ruled 6-0 in favor of the man, stating that the remote testimony in his case violated the confrontation clause of both the United States and Michigan Constitutions. This is a blow to prosecutors, who were looking to have remote testimony become more of the norm due to costs and convenience. The Court made it clear that the right to confront accusers in person and the ability to decide to waive that right rested only with defendants, not prosecutors. If an accused agrees that remote testimony can be given against him in a case, then and only then, will it be allowed. The obvious fear from defendants and their attorneys is that when testimony is given remotely, it does not always accurately represent what a witness’s testimony really looks like. A jury in this situation is not given the opportunity to use their abilities to read body language, but most importantly, it flies in the face of what the Sixth Amendment intended, the right to be able to confront your accusers in court, and question them in a public forum. The case will now go back to a lower court who will view the video testimony that was given in the man’s case to determine if a different result would have occurred had the testimony been in person.
Michigan Criminal Lawyers Blog






