Mr. Giron-Chamul, a master sergeant in the U.S. Air Force, was convicted for oral copulation upon his four-year old daughter and sentenced to life in prison.
At his trial, his daughter testified via closed circuit camera. She was unable to follow the judge's instructions, hid under a table, and refused to answer at least 150 questions. Of the questions she did answer, she admitted her mother (defendant's ex-wife) told her what to say, claimed that her father put his own penis in his mouth, molested her in front a a crowd of people, that she owned 2,000 Hello Kitty outfits, and that her father licked his own underwear.
Following his conviction, Giron-Chamul appealed. The First District reverses.
This is a thoughtful opinion written with little precedential guidance. The panel distinguishes cases where adult witnesses refuse to answer questions. When an adult evades questions, the panel argues, the purpose of cross examination is accomplished. A jury can be expected to question the credibility of an adult witness who refuses to answer relevant questions, conferring upon a defendant the benefit of cross-examination, letting sunlight fall upon the witness' story. With a child, however, such refusals are not likely to have the same effect; there are a myriad of reasons for a child to refuse to answer questions and the presumption that a jury will respond skeptically does not apply. Therefore Giron-Chamul did not have an opportunity to confront the witness against him.
Now the state has to decide whether to retry Master Sergeant Giron Chamul.
No comments:
Post a Comment