Pitts v. Mississippi (No 24-1149)

In Pitts v. Mississippi (No 24-1149), the Nine summarily reversed a Mississippi Supreme Court decision that effectively ignored the Court's decisions in Coy v. Iowa (1988) and Maryland v. Craig (1990), which require trial courts to make case-specific findings of necessity before precluding a criminal defendant from exercising his Sixth Amendment right to confront child witnesses "face to face."

Jeffrey Pitts was convicted of sexually abusing his daughter, after a trial at which the child was permitted to testify against Pitts from behind a screen. Pitts objected to the screen as a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, but the trial judge overruled the objection based on a Mississippi state law that gives child witnesses the "right" to testify behind a "screen that ... obscure[s] the child's view of the defendant." On appeal, the Mississippi Supreme Court acknowledged that the trial court had failed to make a case-specific finding that the screen was necessary, as required by the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Maryland v. Craig (1990) and Coy v. Iowa (1988), but held that those decisions don't apply where a state statute effectively mandating screening provides the finding of necessity.

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed, in a per curiam order reiterating its binding confrontation-clause precedent: "Under Coy and Craig, a trial court may not deny a defendant his Sixth Amendment right to meet his accusers face to face simply because a statute permits screening. Nor may a court authorize screening based on generalized findings of necessity underlying such a statute. Instead, the Sixth Amendment tolerates screening in child-abuse cases only if a court hears evidence and issues a case-specific finding of the requisite necessity." That didn't happen in Pitts's case, and the big Supreme Court was thoroughly unimpressed with the little Supreme Court's conclusion that a state law can somehow override its decisions on the supreme law of the land. "When state law conflicts with the Federal Constitution, the latter controls."

This full-throated and unanimous re-endorsement of a fairly controversial, pro-defendant constitutional principle is noteworthy, particularly given that certain Justices have recently expressed reservations about other confrontation-clause decisions. Perhaps to ensure that unanimity, the Court closed its per curiam GVR with a reminder that confrontation-clause violations are not structural errors, but trial errors subject to harmless-error review. The Nine thus expressly invited the Mississippi Supreme Court to consider whether the error here warrants a new trial. While it is the prosecution's burden to show that an error is harmless, practically speaking, Pitts will have to show that the screen contributed to his conviction; and, even if he does, his reward will likely be a new trial at which the judge will have substantial discretion in making a "case specific" finding that the screen is necessary.

While Mr. Pitts's victory may be short-lived, it's nevertheless nice to see a unanimous Supreme Court endorse one of its older and more controversial constitutional decisions. Whether this "happy family" dynamic endures beyond Thanksgiving is another question...

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.