Interesting. There are cases where witnesses have been specifically banned from using masks to hide themselves. Americans have a right to see the face of their accuser, and to have the jury see it too. I'm all for covid masks but let us not allow this to become an excuse for an evil witness to hide thier face.
No. I meant literal. This issue come up when a witness wants to appear by phone. There is a cultural assumption that by looking someone in the eye we can tell if they are lying. So phone is not good enough. It has to be phone+video. It has also been an issue where witnesses, mostly women, want to were veils while on the stand.
This principal hasn't gotten to scotus, but is well recognized.
And procedures for child witnesses appearing outside the courtroom. A speaker on the stand is not good enough. Someone, at least the lawyers, has to see the witness. That has gone to a few higher courts.
And special agents who don't want to reveal thier identities.. and and and. There isn't much new when it comes to witnesses.
> There is a cultural assumption that by looking someone in the eye we can tell if they are lying. So phone is not good enough. It has to be phone+video.
I only had to Google for a minute to find plenty of instances where courts will allow testimony over the phone (no video) and even by letter, and nowhere did I see "cultural assumptions" like determining truth by being able to look into someone's eyes mentioned as relevant.
Show me actual case law to the contrary or I'm calling BS on your claims.
Too many little rules and exemptions to cite any one case. Look to the rules in each jurisdiction.
>> The Tennessee Supreme Court has addressed the reasons why live, in-person testimony is more desirable than remote testimony. Kelly v. Kelly, 445 SW3d 685 (2014) explains this preference: “(1) It assists the trier of fact in evaluating the witness’ credibility by allowing his or her demeanor to be observed firsthand; (2) It helps establish the identity of the witness; (3) It impresses upon the witness the seriousness of the occasion; (4) It assures that the witness is not being coerced during testimony; (5) It assures that the witness is not referring to documents improperly; and (6) In cases where required, it provides for the right of confrontation of witnesses.
Note: in SOME cases in-person testimony is REQUIRED. That means in those cases remote testimony is disallowed.
One court considering in person testimony to be more desirable is not in any way equivalent to a decision that doing otherwise is a violation of anyone's rights. You haven't proven that a right exists, nor does the article defend that claim. You've proven that it's an administrative matter that different jurisdictions handle differently depending on circumstances, but still perfectly legal.
Certainly you haven't proven your original assertion that wearing a mask according to COVID-19 guidelines is a violation of Americans' Sixth Amendment rights (the "right to face their accuser") because that argument depends on a blatant misinterpretation of what the wording of that Amendment means.
This all seems irrelevant. Suppose, at a trial, a defendant made a motion to compel a plaintiff’s witness to remove their mask. This would not necessarily be a problem: the witness could appear by closed circuit video, behind glass, or merely a respectable distance from everyone else. There is no reason that seeing a witness’ face should involve any material risk of COVID-19 transmission.
On the flip side, you certainly have no right to see anyone’s face in public. If you go somewhere very cold, many people will wear scarves or other face coverings to stay warm. This does not result in any sort of breakdown of social order.
Some do. Some don't. It is an area where the judge and accused have some latitude depending on the nature of the testimony. If the arguement is made that the hijab is being used to conceal something, a judge will order it removed.
No. The right exists in narrow circumstances and, if asserted by the accused, will be respected. Just because someone has a right to something doesn't meant it must always happen. Rights can be asserted or not. Waived or not.
