3 ms·

I was under the impression we often allowed anonymous testimony in courts for criminal trials, often to protect the identity of the witness and avoid the opport

I was under the impression we often allowed anonymous testimony in courts for criminal trials, often to protect the identity of the witness and avoid the opportunity for them to be coerced or intimidated. I imagine often the situation is that your identity is verified, but just not entered into the public record? If anything, the point of it is because "we should not listen to cowards" is the justification for the worst kind of heckler's veto. It's the exact reason it was hard to get testimony against organized crime. If there's a good chance you'll be physically attacked, kidnapped, or financially ruined for trying to bring justice, you're simply encouraging more violence and threats in order to protect those already in power.

breck 4y ago
> I was under the impression we often allowed anonymous testimony in courts for criminal trials We specifically do not. The 6th Amendment: "...to be confronted with the witnesses against him" https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/right_to_confront_witness https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/right_to_confront_witness
- noirbot 4y ago
  Sure, and plenty of constitutional rights have exceptions with balancing tests. You can't say literally anything under the first amendment, you can't own literally anything that could be used as "arms" under the second, the definition of "due process" is regularly in question when it comes to the fifth amendment and has been a basis of plenty of expansive rulings outside of what you may think is a reasonable part of the amendment. I was perhaps over-stating when I said "often", but it's not patently absurd that there could be an accepted exception in this case.
ameister14 4y ago
I don't think it's 'often' and it's only in cases where there is a real and credible threat of harm to the witness. While that might make it harder to go after organized crime, the US believes it is important that, when you are accused of doing something, you get to confront your accuser. There's a really interesting law review article about this from 2020 which gets into the idea that, through misconduct, a defendant can waive their right to confront the witness at trial. Here's a link: https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol39/iss4/3/ https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol39/iss4/3/
- noirbot 4y ago
  That makes sense and generally tracks, but I guess I'm not sure I feel like it's 100% an issue, especially in a civil trial like this. Plus, in this case, this isn't the accuser/witness, this is the defense, right? Reddit is roughly filing an amicus defending the case, so it makes even more sense that it would be ok to offer your experience and opinion on a civil issue without having to publicly say who you were, assuming your relevance and authority on the subject could be verified. Most constitutional rights in the US aren't limitless and are subject to various balancing tests, of which this seems like a reasonable and relevant one.
  - ameister14 4y ago
    I was responding to your statement that you thought that this was a common process in criminal trials, which is why the comment is only about criminal. I don't entirely disagree with you re civil cases like this one, though I believe under normal circumstances it is preferable to have de-anonymized witnesses.

breck 4y ago

> I was under the impression we often allowed anonymous testimony in courts for criminal trials We specifically do not. The 6th Amendment: "...to be confronted with the witnesses against him" https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/right_to_confront_witness https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/right_to_confront_witness

noirbot 4y ago
Sure, and plenty of constitutional rights have exceptions with balancing tests. You can't say literally anything under the first amendment, you can't own literally anything that could be used as "arms" under the second, the definition of "due process" is regularly in question when it comes to the fifth amendment and has been a basis of plenty of expansive rulings outside of what you may think is a reasonable part of the amendment. I was perhaps over-stating when I said "often", but it's not patently absurd that there could be an accepted exception in this case.

ameister14 4y ago

I don't think it's 'often' and it's only in cases where there is a real and credible threat of harm to the witness. While that might make it harder to go after organized crime, the US believes it is important that, when you are accused of doing something, you get to confront your accuser. There's a really interesting law review article about this from 2020 which gets into the idea that, through misconduct, a defendant can waive their right to confront the witness at trial. Here's a link: https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol39/iss4/3/ https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol39/iss4/3/

noirbot 4y ago
That makes sense and generally tracks, but I guess I'm not sure I feel like it's 100% an issue, especially in a civil trial like this. Plus, in this case, this isn't the accuser/witness, this is the defense, right? Reddit is roughly filing an amicus defending the case, so it makes even more sense that it would be ok to offer your experience and opinion on a civil issue without having to publicly say who you were, assuming your relevance and authority on the subject could be verified. Most constitutional rights in the US aren't limitless and are subject to various balancing tests, of which this seems like a reasonable and relevant one.
- ameister14 4y ago
  I was responding to your statement that you thought that this was a common process in criminal trials, which is why the comment is only about criminal. I don't entirely disagree with you re civil cases like this one, though I believe under normal circumstances it is preferable to have de-anonymized witnesses.