Brief Fact Summary. A crucial prosecution witness to in a robbery trial was a juvenile with a record of delinquency. The defendant sought to impeach the witness.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. “[T]he right of confrontation is paramount to the State’s policy of protecting a juvenile offender,” and such a witness may be impeached.
Issue. “[W]hether the Confrontation Clause requires that a defendant in a criminal case be allowed to impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness by cross-examination directed at possible bias deriving the witness’ probationary status as a juvenile delinquent when such impeachment would conflict with a State’s asserted interest in preserving the confidentiality of juvenile adjudications of delinquency.
Held. Yes. The Supreme Court of the United States first reiterated the basic premise of the Confrontation Clause, that an accused has the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” The Supreme Court further examined the necessity of cross-examination, with special emphasis on the value of impeachment by introducing a prior criminal conviction. “By so doing the cross-examiner intends to afford the jury a basis to infer that the witness’ character is such that he would be less likely than the average trustworthy citizen to be truthful in his testimony.” In the present case, the Supreme Court found that “[w]hile [petitioner’s] counsel was permitted to ask Green whether he was biased, counsel was unable to make a record from which to argue why Green might have been biased or otherwise lacked that degree of impartiality expected of a witness at trial.” The Supreme Court suggested that the jury had no means of understanding the basis of this argument. The Supreme Court
conceded that the State did have “an important interest in protecting the anonymity of juvenile offenders.” It disputed, however, the argument that the need for anonymity outweighed “any competing interest this petitioner might have in cross-examining Green.”
The theory of the defense was that the witness might have made a hasty and faulty identification of the defendant in order to shift suspicion away from himself, or he might have been subject to undue pressure from the police and made his identifications under fear of possible probation revocation.View Full Point of Law