Sexual abuse charges are tough to defend. What do you do if a child (or former child) is sitting on the witness stand telling a judge or jury that you did x, y, and z to them? At least you get to confront the witness accusing you of these horrific things, right? At least your attorney gets to ask them questions, right? Well, maybe not.
Nowadays child victims are often interviewed by a social worker who is trained to get information out of the child for use against you at your trial. They do it one-on-one so the child is not intimidated. They make the environment nice and cozy for the child for optimal disclosure of details about the alleged abuse while police and CSB workers watch behind a one-way mirror or over closed circuit tv. And then if the child is not available to testify against you at trial, the State just uses the recording of that cozy interview at your trial to get the conviction and get you locked in a cage for most of your life.
What about the Confrontation Clause? Not a problem, says the Ohio Supreme Court. The OSC today held that "statements made to interviewers at child-advocacy centers that are made for medical diagnosis and treatment are nontestimonial and are admissible without offending the Confrontation Clause." Which statements are those? Oh, you know, the statements like "he did x, y, and z to me." The ones that can get you convicted and locked up. Read the decision in State v. Arnold, 2010-Ohio-2742, by clicking here or review the oral argument by clicking here.
