I was reading the comment section of the internet demonizing a child who is accused of being an adult woman from Ukraine. There is enough evidence out there, especially photos to prove this child was in fact a child when she was adopted and now is a teenager living with her new family for 6 years. All this aside, even if she was four years older than what she believes she was when she was adopted, she would have been 13 at the time the second family abandons her. Still a child, but capable enough at her crippled state to defend for her self for the month she did. What annoyed me most about the case was the fact people were judging her demeanor on her interview with Dr. Phil. Claiming she was too posed for a teenager so she must be 30 years old, she looked older than a 16-year-old should be, or the fact she couldn’t remember all the dates correct. It was ridiculous how much the internet wanted her case to be soo true that they were willing to demonize her. Most people don’t remember every detail of their childhood, if you asked me how old I was in 2nd grade…honestly I couldn’t tell ya, I give age rages but that’s it. Like I said she may actually be older than what she is, without realizing it and she could have had some mental delay due to malnutrition in the orphanage. All which I would think an expert would have mentioned, along with an expert on dwarfism. It’s like the internet wanted her to scream in her interview “Catch me outside, how bout that!”, to prove she’s a child. When I was 16 years old, I was often confused with being much older because I didn’t “act” like a “child”. So because the internet is just burning her at the stake I decided to figure out what demeanor is and face to face confrontation.

The criminal defendant, in America, has the constitutional right to confront their accusers face to face. The problem arises when the accusers are rape victims who want to remain anonymous, are children, wear face veils, or feel threatened. The accusers could be giving testimony on mafia or gang members putting their own lives in danger. While some states do provide protection services, the people ask to be witnesses decline due to having their entire livelihoods put at risk. People may not be witnesses for “white” collar crimes, because while the court or police see no threaten on their personal life; the person could have their entire career or family career or etc be destroyed. This Confrontation Clause of the sixth amendment of the United States Constitution states “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”  The fourteenth amendments makes the right applicable to states and local governments as well. This right only applies to criminal prosecutions, not civil or other proceedings. There have not been any American court cases where a face veiled individual has been a part of criminal prosecutions. States have applied laws on appearances of parties in court, and as long as these laws do not violate the first and fourteenth amendment they are allowed.

Michigan passed the amendment of Rule 611 on September 1, 2009, in which article b states:

 (b) The appearance of Parties and Witnesses. The court shall exercise reasonable control over the appearance of parties and witness so as to (1) ensure that the demeanor of such persons may be observed and assessed by the fact finder and (2) ensure the accurate identification of such persons.

what is demeanor exactly? According to Google demeanor is the outward behavior or bearing. While dictornary.com states that it is conduct, behavior, deportment, and facial appearance. The demeanor is fundamental in criminal cases, it is often considered the evidence. This is problematic, however, for obvious reasons. This is also one of the main reasons why people will have their cases dismissed or accused in court cases because they didn’t appear emotional enough or too emotional. Not to mention the racial bias of people who cannot physically change their demeanor.  When a witness is reluctant to testify or hesitates to answer a question, this will affect the witness’s credibility. A witness may actually be shy or nervous by nature but are perceived as dishonest or crafty. The criminal defendant “to be confronted with the witness against him,” US Constitution, Amendment VI, has “a lineage that traces back to the beginnings of Western legal culture.”

            In the 1990 case Maryland vs Craig a defendant was accused of sexually assaulting a child. The child permitted to testify using a one-way closed-circuit television procedure established by the Maryland statute. The statute permits a trial court to take testimony using this procedure if it finds the testifying in the courtroom would cause the child such serious emotional distress that the child would be unable to reasonably communicate. The court expressed that “a defendant’s right to confront accusatory witness may be satisfied absent a physical, face-to-face confrontation at trial only where denial of such confrontation is necessary to further an important public policy and only where the reliability of the testimony is otherwise assured.”. Even though Maryland’s procedure doesn’t permit face to face confrontation it still had elements of the right to confrontation. The child still testified under oath; the defendant still had the right to cross-examination; still, a right to a judge, jury, and defendant can view. Some states and federal courts have recently considered what circumstances testimony can be taken while a witness’s eyes or face are not visible and if it violates a criminal defendant’s right of confrontation.

Demeanor is not simply facts but how those facts are presented; i.e. what emotion or how they are represented. It can include nonverbal behaviors, speech patterns such as the pitch or tone and hesitation, and as well as visual cues such as blinking, scratching, legs moving, fidgeting, crying, blushing, swallowing, etc. The ‘Demeanor cues can be anything which the observer deems as potentially indicative of a witness’s state of mind – voluntary or involuntary, simple or complex’. This all can be interpreted by cultural context and on the bias.

Demeanor is one of the leading causes of why rape victims aren’t taken seriously in court. Personal biases on other aspects of victims or the accused could cause the cause to be dropped or falsely accuse an innocent person of a crime they did not commit. Black men will most likely go to jail for an identical crime of a white man, and both races have been put on death row for as much evidence as demeanor. Yet these visual clues, characteristics, and etc can be faked by a witness, victim, or criminal. There are such things as actors…..

People with mental problems or physical impairments might not be able to act “appropriate” in court. Nor can people from low incomes can appear “cleaner” in appearance to the CEO they are accusing of a crime. There are numerous factors that go into finding out whether someone is telling the truth or not, but let’s face it…we don’t live in a society where we can all judge a book by its cover and be accurate enough. When it comes to crimes like rape, the women are more likely to be written off if they aren’t white, “attractive”, or appear emotional enough for the court.

I mentioned face to face confrontation, in the beginning, this rule needs to change to allow for a looser interpretation. Otherwise, criminals can ( and are) getting away with crimes because people are too afraid to come forward. Victims are also too afraid to come forward because of the danger they perceive themselves to be in. This doesn’t mean that the criminal shouldn’t have the right to see who is accusing them, but when it comes to certain criminal cases its best there’s a better option for all parties in place. When it comes to demeanor, there is no way to get rid of all personal biases of the jury or judge. Just because they screen for certain “ills” doesn’t mean the judge isn’t a racist sexist islamophobe homophobe. There isn’t much we can do about demeanor besides making sure it’s not used as the main evidence of someone being guilty or not guilty. In other words, we can’t accuse someone of being guilty because they “acted much older”, ” talked more mature”, “don’t look sad enough”, “aren’t pretty enough”, and etc.