Cole's Law passes Senate committee

The San Luis Obispo Tribune ^ | 30 March 2005 | Ryan Huff

[AnOldCowhand]

The state Senate Public Safety Committee on Tuesday passed a bill that would allow child-abuse victims to testify on a closed-circuit TV outside the presence of a defendant.

State Sen. Abel Maldonado authored the bill -- dubbed Cole's Law -- after a local molestation charge was dropped because a 4-year-old San Luis Obispo County boy was too scared to testify in front of the female defendant.

"I've always said early on I want to help the voiceless and vulnerable," said Maldonado, R-Santa Maria. "This young individual, who is now 8 years old, inspired me to move this bill forward."

In order to become law, the bill will need to be passed by the Senate, an Assembly committee, the full Assembly and then eventually signed by the governor. A date for the full Senate vote has not been set.

The bill would give discretion to a judge to allow such testimony procedures for alleged victims 13 years old and younger.

It's the second time Maldonado has proposed the legislation. Last year, it was defeated by the Assembly Public Safety Committee amid concerns that an accuser could be coached in a closed-circuit setting.

The California Public Defenders Association has similar concerns and opposes the bill, as does the American Civil Liberties Union.

Liberty Sanchez, a lobbyist for the CPDA, said the bill would chip away at a key clause of the U.S. Constitution -- the ability for defendants to confront their accusers.

"The fact that in one instance one defendant was not brought to trial does not mean the entire confrontation clause of the U.S. Constitution should be turned on its head," she said.

Sanchez argued that in a closed-circuit setting it could be easier for an alleged victim to embellish facts.

"I've had conversations with people over the phone that I'd find more difficult having face to face," she said. "When you have somebody's liberty on the line, you need to provide every assurance that the testimony given against them is valid and honest."

[AnOldCowhand]

"The fact that in one instance one defendant was not brought to trial does not mean the entire confrontation clause of the U.S. Constitution should be turned on its head,"

[steve in DC]

Cole's Law = shreaded cabbage!

It had to be said!