Page 3
Court of Appeal:
LASC’s In-Court Mask Requirement Is Constitutionally Valid
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Los Angeles Superior Court’s requirement that masks be worn in courtrooms, in response to the COVID-19 epidemic, did not violate the federal Constitution’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, two divisions of the Court of Appeal for this district have declared.
Acting Presiding Justice Elizabeth A. Grimes of Div. Eight authored one of the opinions, filed yesterday. She said:
“We conclude defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment were not violated. United States Supreme Court precedent establishes the right to face-to-face confrontation is not absolute….The mask requirement was necessary to further the public policy of ensuring the safety of everyone in the courtroom during a global pandemic of a highly infectious, potentially deadly virus. The procedure fairly balanced defendant’s speedy trial rights with the government’s need to reduce the substantial risk of infection to everyone in the courtroom during the trial.”
Federal Decisions
She commented:
“We are not aware of any published California cases resolving this precise issue. However, numerous federal district courts have concluded that, due to the unique and substantial public health risks created by the ongoing global pandemic, the Confrontation Clause is not violated by having a witness testify in a criminal proceeding with a mask covering the nose and mouth….
“We agree with the reasoning in these federal decisions which rely on the public interest exception to the face-to-face confrontation requirement.”
That exception, she noted, was recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1990 decision in Maryland v. Craig.
The case is People v. Lopez, B309605.
Perluss’s Opinion
Presiding Justice Dennis M. Perluss of Div. Seven, also took note of Craig. He said in an opinion on Monday:
“[T]here is no doubt that requiring people to wear masks covering the mouth and the lower part of the nose while testifying in the courtroom during the COVID-19 pandemic served an important state interest in protecting the public from a contagious, and too often, lethal, disease.”
Rejecting the contention by defendant Carlos Hector Alvarez that masks precluded the jurors from assessing credibility of witnesses, the jurist said:
“Although face masks covered the witnesses’ mouths and the lower part of their noses, significant aspects of their appearance, including the eyes, tops of the cheeks, and the body, were readily observable as was posture, tone of voice, cadence and numerous other aspects of demeanor.”
Perluss commented:
“In concluding Alvarez’s confrontation rights were not violated, we are mindful of the importance of the issue Alvarez raises and the likelihood it will recur as courts continue to grapple with the need to balance the health and safety of courtroom participants during the COVID-19 pandemic with the defendant’s constitutional right to confrontation. There may well be occasions, due to the fluid nature of the pandemic and evolving health and safety measures, as well as the type of face covering that may be at issue, when the balance tips differently, and does not fit as neatly, within the public policy exception identified in Craig. That is not the case on the record before us.”
The case is People v. Alvarez, 2022 S.O.S. 650.
Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company