Legal Opinion · Concurrence

People v. Arredondo

California Court of Appeal, 5th District

Decided July 27, 2017No. E064206Published

1Concurrence

SLOUGH, J., Dissenting and Concurring.

I respectfully disagree with the majority's conclusion the accommodation during F.R.'s testimony did not violate Arredondo's Sixth Amendment right to face-to-face confrontation. The majority opinion breaks with established Sixth Amendment law. It is the first California appellate decision to approve the use of a physical barrier accommodation, as well as the first to invade the right to face-to-face confrontation to protect a non-disabled adult witness. Potentially more problematic, the majority infers and upholds a finding of necessity based on the…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. New York v. FerberSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  3. Prince v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
  4. Maryland v. CraigSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  5. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, County of NorfolkSupreme Court of the United States · 1982

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API