People v. Alvarez

Summary

Carlos Alvarez was charged with first degree residential burglary. Alvarez's trial took place during the COVID-19 pandemic, and Alvarez objected to requiring witnesses to wear masks over their mouth and nose while testifying, arguing that it would deprive him of his constitutional right to confrontation. The trial court and Alvarez discussed the possibility of having witnesses remove their masks and testify behind a plastic shield, but the trial court eventually overruled the objection and required witnesses to testify while wearing masks. Alvarez was convicted by the jury and subsequently appealed, arguing that using a plastic shield would have been a less restrictive way to protect against COVID-19 without infringing upon his right to confrontation.

Affirmed. The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment provides two types of protections to a criminal defendant: the right to conduct cross-examination, and the right to physically face those who testify against him. Cross-examination is the critical right of the confrontation clause, but the face-to-face right may be dispensed with where denial is necessary to further an important public policy and the reliability of the testimony is otherwise assured. Here, requiring witnesses to wear masks obviously served the important state interest in protecting the public from COVID-19. In evaluating whether a plastic shield was a less restrictive alternative, the court relied on guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which stated that face shields are not as effective as masks at preventing the transmission of COVID-19, and recommended against substituting face shields for masks. As to the reliability of the testimony, the testimony would still be in person, under oath, and subject to cross-examination. Moreover, significant aspects of witnesses' appearance would still be visible, including their eyes, the tops of their cheeks, and their bodies. The court noted that the Confrontation Clause does not guarantee the right to see witnesses' lips move any more than it requires jurors to examine the back of witnesses' necks with a magnifying glass to see if their hairs raise. Accordingly, requiring witnesses to wear masks during the COVID-19 pandemic did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

— Matthew Sasaki