PENNSYLVANIA Court upholds testimony changes

The revisions don't discriminate against those accused of child abuse, judges say.
HARRISBURG (AP) -- A state court upheld amendments to the Pennsylvania Constitution on Thursday that allow children to testify by videotape or closed-circuit television.
The 3-2 Commonwealth Court ruling turned away a challenge by three criminal-defense lawyers who had argued that two ballot questions approved overwhelmingly by state voters had legal flaws.
Voters in November changed what had been a right in the state constitution of defendants to confront witnesses "face to face" to a right to "be confronted" with witnesses against them.
Also approved was a measure to authorize the state General Assembly to draw up rules for children to testify outside courtrooms.
The court's majority said the changes do not discriminate against defendants accused of child abuse.
'Speculation'
Judge Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter wrote that the three attorneys engaged in "pure speculation" in suggesting the amendments would lead to more wrongful convictions.
"The amendment on its face pertains to the right of every criminal defendant and does not apply to defendants accused of a particular type of crime," Judge Leadbetter wrote.
Gerald C. Grimaud, a Tunkhannock lawyer who was lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said the case probably will be appealed.
"It's very basic to our due process. We'll see what happens in the [state] Supreme Court, I guess," he said.
A spokesman for state Attorney General Jerry Pappert said he was pleased the amendments were deemed constitutional.
"More importantly, we're pleased that the court has upheld the will of the people to give the General Assembly the authority to enact laws that protect child witnesses in criminal proceedings," said the spokesman, Sean Connolly.
Rules
Legislature-passed rules were signed into law July 15 by Gov. Ed Rendell and took effect immediately.
Judge Dan Pellegrini wrote in a partial dissent joined by Judge Doris A. Smith-Ribner that he agreed with the plaintiffs' argument that the so-called "plain English" description of the amendments published by the attorney general for voters misled them into thinking only children would be exempted from the face-to-face requirement.
"The amendment itself does not even mention the word 'children' and the ballot question removes from our constitution the right to confront witnesses in person from everyone," Judge Pellegrini wrote. He and Smith-Ribner joined the majority opinion in all other respects.
Grimaud said the vote may have turned out differently had voters been more aware that the changes could apply to adult witnesses as well as children.