Coy v. Iowa

Media Items
Coy v. Iowa - Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Paul Papak (by appointment of the Court, argued the cause for the appellant)
Gorden E. Allen (Deputy Attorney General of Iowa, argued the cause for appellee)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
86-6757
Appellee: 
Iowa
Appellant: 
John Coy
Location
Javascript is required to view this map.

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Coy v. Iowa , 487 U.S. 1012 (1988)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_6757)
Facts of the Case: 

John Coy was tried in an Iowa court for sexually assaulting two 13-year-old girls. When the girls were testifying against Coy, the court placed a large screen in front of him so that the girls would not have to see him. The jury proceeded to convict him. Coy argued that Iowa Code 910A, which provides for the use of a screen in child sexual abuse cases, violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accusers face-to-face. He also claimed that the code violated his right to due process, since having a screen placed between him and the girls made him appear guilty before he was properly tried. The trial court dismissed these claims and the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed.

Question: 

Does a defendant have the right to confront his alleged victims "face-to-face" under the Sixth Amendment if they testify against him before a jury?

Conclusion: 

Yes. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of a 6-2 court. The Sixth Amendment explicitly states that the accused has the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." The Court maintained this "confrontation is essential to fairness." The screen clearly disrupted this confrontation in a way that could have biased the trial. While acknowledging that "face-to-face presence may, unfortunately, upset the truthful rape victim or abused child," the Court insisted that "by the same token it may confound and undo the false accuser, or reveal the child coached by a malevolent adult." A trial court cannot abridge the right to confrontation using a generalized law, and in Coy's case no specific reason was given for using a screen.

Decisions

Decision: 6 votes for Coy, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Right to Confront and Cross-Examine, Compulsory Process

Sort by Ideology

Voted with the minority, joined Blackmun's dissent
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Brennan
Voted with the majority, joined O'Connor's concurrence
White
Voted with the majority
Marshall
Wrote a dissent
Blackmun
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Wrote a regular concurrence
O'Connor
Wrote the majority opinion
Scalia
Did not participate
Kennedy

Full Opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia

Timeplots Affiliate

Timeplots.com: A Visual History of the Supreme Court