If enacted, AB 1790 would significantly alter how witness testimony is conducted in California's criminal proceedings. The bill insists that if a court finds a victim's presence during testimony would cause serious emotional distress or present a threat to their safety, remote testimony can be permitted. The changes aim to ensure that victims, especially those facing threats from the defendant, can participate in the judicial process without fear of further victimization.
Assembly Bill 1790, introduced by Assembly Member Cervantes, seeks to amend the Penal Code to extend existing provisions regarding witness testimony, specifically focusing on child witnesses and adding provisions for victim witnesses. The bill expands the ability of courts to allow testimony from victims to take place away from the courtroom using contemporaneous examination and cross-examination, particularly in cases where the defendant is representing themselves pro per. This aims to enhance the safety and emotional well-being of victims, particularly in sensitive cases such as stalking or other violent crimes.
The sentiment towards AB 1790 appears to lean towards a supportive stance from victim advocacy groups and those concerned with improving the legal procedures for sensitive cases. Proponents argue that allowing remote testimony serves to protect vulnerable witnesses and enhances the integrity of the judicial process. Conversely, there may be concerns about the balance of rights between the victim and the defendant, especially regarding fair trial rights for those representing themselves without counsel.
Notable points of contention include the potential implications for defendants representing themselves. The bill emphasizes the need for written notice to defendants prior to remote proceedings, which introduces a procedural requirement to ensure they are informed. Critics may argue that such an arrangement needs careful oversight to prevent any infringement on the rights of defendants to confront their accusers, thus raising questions about how courts will best implement this bill without compromising foundational legal rights.