PENNSYLVANIA Lawyers object to ballot questions about allowing children to testify via videotape

The lawyers say the questions are ambiguous.
HARRISBURG (AP) -- With eight days to go until the Nov. 4 election, a group of criminal-defense attorneys on Monday asked a state appeals judge to nullify two ballot questions that would allow children to testify in court via closed-circuit television or videotape.
The attorneys argued that contrary to a "plain-English" explanation authored by state Attorney General Mike Fisher, one of the ballot questions does not explicitly state that the measure applies only to children's testimony.
Such ambiguity could enable prosecutors to avoid requiring adults to testify in person, particularly if they lived far away, said Gerald Grimaud of Tunkhannock, one of the attorneys who objected to the ballot questions in a lawsuit filed last week in Commonwealth Court.
"Where do you draw the line?" Grimaud said.
The attorneys also contend that the measure violates the constitutional right of a defendant to confront an accuser face to face, repeats a problem that invalidated a similar ballot question passed eight years ago, and infringes upon the state judiciary's powers.
Judge's question
Commonwealth Court Judge Dan Pellegrini said if the lawsuit had been filed sooner, he would have had enough time to rule on the matter before the ballots were printed.
"What took you so long?" he asked.
Grimaud explained the defense attorneys had to sort through many issues and did not want to risk neglecting any questions that court rules would have prevented them from raising after they filed the lawsuit.
The suit seeks an injunction to keep the two measures off the ballot, to block the votes from being counted if they are cast, and to not certify the tallies if they are counted.
The two proposed constitutional amendments revive a measure Pennsylvania voters passed in 1995. That measure was overturned by a state appeals court two years later when Grimaud successfully argued that more than one issue was posed in a single ballot question.
The 1995 ballot measure asked whether language stating defendants have the right to confront witnesses "face to face" should be replaced with the right to "be confronted" by witnesses against them; and whether lawmakers should be authorized to make rules for letting children give testimony outside the courtroom.
A lawyer for the Pennsylvania Department of State said the two questions on this year's ballot seek to treat each provision separately in accordance with the state Supreme Court's ruling.
John Bergdoll of York, one of the defense attorneys who filed the lawsuit, said, however, that one of the amendments asks voters whether videotaped depositions and closed-circuit testimony should be allowed for children, and whether the Legislature can enact laws governing children's testimony.
Combining those two matters in one question violates the same legal requirement for amendments to address only one issue, which led to the state Supreme Court ruling overturning the 1995 measure, he said.
Judge Pellegrini did not indicate exactly when he would issue a ruling, but said it could happen within a week.