Also known as: child as witness · child witness · children witnesses · child witnesses · minor witnesses
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Witnesses who are minors. A child may testify if the child understands the duty to tell the truth and can communicate perceptions of relevant events. Courts may authorize alternative procedures such as one-way closed-circuit television when necessary to shield the child from serious emotional trauma, provided the child testifies under oath, remains subject to cross-examination, and the fact-finder can observe demeanor.
Prosecutors charged Carlos with sexually exploiting ten-year-old Mia in the apartment laundry room. Expert testimony established that Mia would suffer severe trauma if forced to face Carlos in open court. The court permitted Mia to testify via one-way closed-circuit television after finding the procedure necessary and confirming that she would testify under oath, face cross-examination, and remain visible to the jury on screen.
Police responded to a report that a six-year-old had been assaulted. The child described the incident to her mother and a doctor shortly afterward. At trial the prosecution offered those out-of-court statements. The court admitted them after determining they carried sufficient indicia of reliability even though the child did not testify.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Nine-year-old Lily overheard an insurance agent promise coverage for storm damage while playing in the barn. When Prairie Valley Farms sued the insurer, the defense moved to bar Lily from testifying solely because of her age. The court applied the forum state's competency standard and examined whether Lily understood the obligation to tell the truth and could relate what she heard.
The state charged Amber with abusing several young hospital patients. The prosecution sought closed-circuit testimony for all of them based on a single expert report. The court denied the motion for witnesses lacking individualized evidence of severe trauma and required separate findings for each child before allowing the alternative procedure.
The prosecution placed a tall whiteboard between twelve-year-old Maya and defendant Lopez during her testimony. The board completely blocked any visual contact. The court ruled the arrangement unconstitutional because it eliminated the face-to-face element of confrontation without satisfying the necessity and reliability requirements for child-witness accommodations.
A court may permit one-way closed-circuit television when it makes a case-specific finding that face-to-face testimony would cause the child serious emotional trauma beyond ordinary nervousness. The procedure must preserve oath, cross-examination, and observation of demeanor to satisfy confrontation requirements.
Supporting sources
No. In federal court the forum state's competency rules govern when state substantive law supplies the rule of decision. A child may testify if the child understands the duty to tell the truth and can communicate perceptions, regardless of age alone.
Supporting sources
The prosecution must present particularized evidence, often through expert testimony, that the child would suffer severe trauma from the defendant's presence. Generalized assertions or lack of individualized findings are insufficient.
Supporting sources
Yes. A barrier that eliminates all face-to-face contact without satisfying the necessity and reliability tests for child accommodations infringes the confrontation right, even if cross-examination remains available.
Supporting sources
…only a general interest in live, face-to-face confrontation that could be outweighed by the State’s interest in protecting child witnesses from the trauma of testifying in the defendant’s presence, and found that the Maryland statute did not pass the strict scrutiny test for the infringement of a fundamental constitutional…