The Iowa Supreme Court in a decision issued Dec. 23 reaffirmed its 2024 ruling that allowing testimony by minors in criminal trials via one-way closed-circuit video violates defendants’ right to confront their accusers under the Iowa Constitution.

Citing its 2024 holding in State v. White, the Court reversed the conviction of Lynn Lindaman of second-degree sexual abuse by a Polk County jury based on the accusation that he sexually abused his seven-year-old granddaughter. The Court held in its 4-2 decision that Lindaman’s constitutional rights were violated when the trial court allowed his accuser to testify via closed-circuit video from outside the courtroom.

The decision was written by Justice Christopher McDonald and joined by Justices Matthew McDermott, Dana Oxley and David May. Justice Thomas Waterman, joined by Chief Justice Susan Christensen, filed a separate opinion dissenting from the majority, saying he would overturn the 2024 decision in White. Justice Edward Mansfield did not participate in consideration of the case or in the decision.

Lindaman raised five issues on appeal, including arguing the district court erred in allowing his granddaughter to testify by video from outside the courtroom. The trial court cited Iowa Code Section 915.38, which provides that a court, in order to protect a minor from “trauma caused by testifying in the physical presence of the defendant,” may order testimony of a minor be taken in a room other than the courtroom and televised in the courtroom.

The Iowa Supreme Court, in its decision in White handed down after Lindaman’s trial, declared that Section 915.38 violated the accused’s right guaranteed by the Iowa Constitution to confront the witnesses against him. [See On Brief’s analysis of the White decision here.]

In reversing Lindaman’s conviction, the majority said it adhered to its decision in White.

The State urged the Court to overturn White, arguing among other things that the right of the accused under the Iowa Constitution to confront their accuser face-to-face is only a constitutional “preference.”  

The Court disagreed, noting that Article I of the Iowa Constitution, which contains the confrontation clause, is titled “Bill of Rights,” not “Bill of Preferences.”

“Our founders believed that the criminal procedures in place during their time were so protective of liberty that they constitutionalized those procedures in a bill of rights to prevent the government from limiting those protections by ordinary legislation,” Justice McDonald wrote.

The Court also said Section 915.38 is in tension, if not outright conflict, with the “foundational principle of our criminal justice system” of the presumption of innocence. In Lindaman’s case, the district court made what Justice McDonald called a preliminary finding of guilt based on testimony of a mental health counselor who concluded Lindaman had, in fact, sexually abused his granddaughter and the child would suffer trauma if she were to testify in Lindaman’s physical presence.

For that reason, and others articulated by the majority, the Court said, “we adhere to White. Section 915.38(1) clearly and palpably violates the fundamental law of the state constitution, and the district court erred in allowing [Lindaman’s granddaughter] to testify outside the defendant’s presence.”

Writing in dissent, Justice Waterman agreed in part with the majority, including its reversal of the district court ruling suppressing Lindaman’s confession under Iowa Code Section 804.20, which provides that a person in police custody shall be allowed to call, consult, or see a family member or attorney. However, he wrote that he would reverse the 2024 decision in White, which he described as an “affront to young victims of unspeakable crimes who are brave enough to testify against their abusers.”

Waterman wrote that the essential purpose of the confrontation clause was satisfied because Lindaman and the jury saw and heard the live testimony of his granddaughter. who was cross-examined face-to-face by his attorney. That process, he wrote, complied with Iowa Code Section 915.38, the Iowa Supreme Court’s prior interpretation of the confrontation clause under the Iowa Constitution, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s analysis of the confrontation clause in the U.S. Constitution.

Waterman also noted the majority left open the question of whether its would permit two-way video live testimony, which the Court left open in both White and Lindaman.

“Fortunately, the majority’s erroneous interpretation of Iowa’s confrontation clause is likely to be short-lived,” he wrote “As soon as 2028, the Iowa legislature is expected to put before Iowa voters a clarifying amendment that effectively overrules White and this case. Unfortunately, until that happens, Lindaman’s granddaughter and other abused children and disabled adults will suffer when they are forced to be in the courtroom with their abusers. Still other victims will not receive justice when prosecutors drop cases to spare them that additional trauma.”

The post Divided Iowa Supreme Court reaffirms 2024 decision barring minors’ closed-circuit testimony against accused appeared first on Nyemaster Goode On Brief.