Kentucky Supreme Court· 10/16/1986

Commonwealth v. Willis

Citations

716 S.W.2d 224

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

upholding constitutionality of statute permitting videotape or closed circuit television testimony where child need not be aware of defendant’s presencé
“Confrontation does not require live presentation of evidence” since photographic or electronic presentation, while not a perfect substitute for live testimony, will suffice
“A photographic or electronic presentation [of evidence] is not perfect as a substitute for live testimony, but it will suffice”
statute upheld but plurality opinion sets out specific and detailed requirements for trial court, aside from statutory requirements, that must be complied with to ensure constitutional application of statute
videotaped testimony is functional equivalent of in-court testimony; photographic or electronic presentation is not perfect as substitute for live testimony, but it will suffice because goal of providing view of witness’s demeanor to jury is still achieved
There is a difference between confrontation and intimidation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Wintersheimer, Gant, Leibson, Vance, Stephens, Stephenson, White

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

41 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.