A Standard Rightfully Upheld

The larger question, inspired by the celebrity status of pop superstar Madonna, is easily put. Should any woman (or man) be made to face, in court, the person who is alleged to have stalked and terrified them? Or does a stalker possess such a peculiar mind-set that an absolute constitutional safeguard should now be changed to allow accusers to testify on videotape, or with the defendant out of the courtroom?

Our answer is simple, although tempered with due sympathy for anyone who has ever been stalked. Superior Court Judge Jacqueline A. Connor and Deputy Dist Atty. Rhonda Saunders had no choice but to force the singer-actress to testify in front of the defendant Wednesday. The massive work required to change this standard is neither warranted nor appropriate.

The thinking here goes beyond the biggest reasons of them all, which are the defendant’s right to a presumption of innocence and the constitutional right to face one’s accuser.

To be sure, times have changed. From the nearly fatal knife attack on actress Theresa Saldana in 1982 through the practically deranged pursuit of a local weatherman by a former police officer, we now see stalkers as frightening and menacing individuals who are capable of anything in their dogged effort to “connect” with their victim by any means.

California laws have caught up with the times, making it easier for stalking victims to prove their cases in court and seek appropriate solutions, but the laws cannot go too far. Victims of attempted murder and aggravated assault must confront their accusers in court. Rape victims must do so as well, and endure inevitable attempts at character assassination. The only exception should be for victims under the age of 10.

And there is one further point to be made here, noting that no verdict has been reached in this case. It is more than just difficult for victims in any stalking, rape, assault or attempted murder case to relive their fear and testify. But it is also true that there is no substitute for the power of a victim’s testimony when the accuser is there to confront the defendant in court. Can that really be matched when the victim is addressing a video camera, or an empty defense chair?