Supreme Court Accepts Child Sex Abuse Cases : Molestation: A ruling could negate state statutes that allow young victims to be shielded during proceedings.

The Supreme Court said Tuesday it would decide whether defendants in child molestation cases have an absolute right to confront their young accusers in open court.

A ruling on the issue, expected by July, is likely to have a profound impact on the growing number of child sex abuse prosecutions across the nation.

Since the McMartin Preschool child molestation case exploded in a glare of publicity in 1983, most states have rushed to enact laws to shield young victims from the trauma of confronting their alleged molesters in open court.

Twenty-five states, including California, now permit child victims in sensitive cases to testify by closed-circuit television and not in the presence of the accused. In addition, 27 states permit the use of videotaped testimony, and 22 permit doctors or child care workers to testify on behalf of a child.

But two years ago, in a surprising opinion, the Supreme Court suggested that the laws could be unconstitutional because they infringe on the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee that a criminal defendant “shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”

The 6-2 ruling threw out the sexual assault conviction of an Iowa man because the two 13-year-old victims were shielded from his view behind a screen when they testified.

The court opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia said the Sixth Amendment gives defendants an absolute right to a “face-to-face confrontation” with their accusers in court.

But only four justices signed the full opinion, and two in the majority--Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Byron R. White--said they believed the confrontation right was “not absolute.”

Nevertheless, courts in several states, including Maryland, Idaho, Massachusetts, West Virginia and Tennessee, have relied on Scalia’s opinion to overturn convictions of child molesters.

Now, at the urging of prosecutors in 28 states, the justices say they will try again to clarify the reach of the Sixth Amendment and its impact on child victims.

Prosecutors and child care specialists say that already traumatized child victims must be protected from abusive adults who may have threatened them with death if they break their silence. But defense lawyers say they fear that innocent people could be convicted as a result of a young child’s exaggerated memories or suggestive questioning from an adult.

Scalia voiced the latter fear in his controversial 1988 opinion. “That face-to-face presence may, unfortunately, upset the truthful rape victim or abused child; but by the same token it may confound and undo the false accuser, or reveal the child coached by a malevolent adult,” he wrote in Coy vs. Iowa.

Two cases will be heard by the court in April. One concerns the closed-circuit TV testimony used against a Maryland preschool owner convicted of sexually abusing four children. A trial judge concluded the children would suffer “serious emotional distress” if forced to face a woman who had threatened them if they talked. All four had shown evidence of physical injuries.

Nevertheless, a Maryland appeals court threw out the conviction of Sandra Craig because her right to confront her accusers had been violated. Prosecutors appealed, and the high court agreed to hear the case of Maryland vs. Craig, 89-478.

The second case concerns the testimony of an Idaho pediatrician who examined and interviewed a 2 1/2-year-old victim of sex abuse by her parents. The doctor found the little girl had been injured and told the jury that she said “daddy” caused the injuries.

While the testimony normally might have been rejected as “hearsay,” states such as Idaho have permitted doctors and child care specialists who work with very young, abused children to testify on their behalf.

However, the Idaho Supreme Court threw out the parents’ convictions because it concluded the doctor’s testimony was unreliable and violated their right to confront their accusers. The justices agreed to hear the state’s appeal in Idaho vs. Wright, 89-260.

Ironically, even though the McMartin case spurred passage of the child protective laws now being challenged, the Supreme Court’s decisions in these cases may have little impact in California or on the McMartin case itself. All the child witnesses in the nearly three-year McMartin trial have testified in open court.

The California Legislature has enacted only one, rarely used law designed to give special protection to child victims, said Karen Ziskind, a deputy attorney general in Sacramento. A 1985 statute allows closed-circuit TV testimony in child abuse cases but limits its use only to instances where it is “clear” that the child faces grave danger from testifying.

“It puts an onerous burden on the child and the prosecution, so it’s not been used much,” Ziskind said. Other measures have been defeated in part because of fears that they would be unconstitutional, state officials said.

In other actions, the Supreme Court:

--Ordered a school principal to stand trial for failing to prevent two high school girls from being sexually molested by a teacher. The principal and his assistant contended that they are immune from a federal damage suit filed by the two former students, but an appeals court in Philadelphia said the two officials knew about the teacher’s behavior and failed to take action to stop it. On Tuesday, the justices refused the principal’s plea for immunity. (Smith vs. Stoneking, 89-780.)

--Agreed to decide whether environmentalists can block the Interior Department’s move to open up 180 million acres of public lands in the West to mining and development. The case began when former Interior Secretary James G. Watt in 1981 sought to remove the development restrictions on huge tracts of Western lands. The National Wildlife Federation, citing complaints from several members, won a court injunction blocking the government effort in 1985. Now, however, the high court will hear the Interior Department’s contention that the environmentalists were not personally injured and therefore had no standing in court to get an injunction against the government. (Lujan vs. National Wildlife Federation, 89-640.)

--Heard arguments on whether California state attorneys can challenge the merger of the Lucky and Alpha Beta supermarket chains. Because of lax antitrust enforcement by the federal government, state officials must have the authority to block “mega-mergers” that could harm competition and consumers, state Deputy Atty. Gen. H. Chester Horn Jr. told the court. But lawyers for the supermarket chain said that under the 1914 Clayton Act, only the federal government has the power to contest such a merger. A ruling in California vs. American Stores, 89-258, can be expected in several months.

--Let stand a $60,000 city fine against a Chicago cable company that failed to carry enough local TV programming. In a closely watched appeal, the Chicago cable franchise contended that the First Amendment does not permit the government to regulate what is broadcast. But without comment, the justices dismissed the appeal. (Chicago Cable Communications vs. Chicago Cable Commission, 89-747.)