How Witness Anonymity Conflicts with the U.S. Constitution
There are two constitutional issues that could arise when it comes to the concept of keeping the identity of a witness anonymous – namely, the Due Process Clause, and the Confrontation Clause.
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution highlights the value of the Due Process Clause. This clause guarantees that a criminal defendant must receive a trial that is both fair and unbiased regardless of the nature of his or her alleged crimes.
If a witness was allowed to stay anonymous while testifying or even wear a disguise in the courtroom, it could inadvertently send a message to the jury that the defendant is dangerous and likely guilty of the alleged crime.
The Confrontation Clause is a provision outlined within and protected by the Sixth Amendment. The term “confrontation” has negative connotations and may seem like it allows defendants to aggressively confront or intimidate their accusers.
On the contrary,
this clause gives the accused the right to control the witnesses against them – which simply means that he or she must know the identity of the accuser and have the opportunity to cross-examine them.
During Mattox v. United States, the Supreme Court highlighted three primary objectives that the Confrontation Clause was designed to serve:
- Ensure that witnesses testify under oath & understand the seriousness of the trial process.
- Allow the accused to subject any witness(es) against them via cross-examination.
- Allow jurors to observe the behavior of the witness to assess his or her credibility.
Without this knowledge, it could be argued that the defendant’s Right to Confrontation was denied – which could have an adverse reaction on the outcome of the case.
https://boatwrightlegal.com/criminal...ess-anonymous/
Bookmarks