Cheryl and Vi's Conviction Overturned

On Tuesday August 29, 1995 Judge Barton reversed Cheryl and Vi's
conviction on grounds that their right to a fair trial was denied when
the children testified without facing them. 
Media coverage has been extensive. On one talk show Patti Amirault challenged
liberal former senator and talk show host Margorie Claprod to meet with her
to look at the evidence. Claprod is a strong supporter of the prosecution
and promoted laws to make courtrooms more "child friendly."

The Massachusetts Law Journal published an abridged version of Judge
Barton's decision.
There have been a couple of misconceptions in the public debate. One is that
the decision is based on a "technicality." This is not really true. To overturn
a conviction a court must find not only that an error occurred, but that it
was substantial enough to result in a miscarriage of justice. Judge Barton
wrote:
    The Commonwealth's entire case depended upon the credibility and
    reliability of the children witnesses. The testimony of the children was
    the critical evidence in the case and the  verdict was based on the jury
    believing that testimony. The only percipient witnesses were children.
    By appearing to elevate and/or protect those children by very special
    furniture and seating arrangements, the jury was indirectly instructed to
    judge the credibility and demeanor of the children in a different light
    than they would a mature witness. The unusual seating arrangements for 
    the children witnesses, like those in Commonwealth vs Johnson, supra
    at 500-501, prevented these defendants from receiving a fair trial under
    both the United States and the Massachusetts Constitutions.

    The special seating arrangements for the children prevented justice from
    being done.  The Constitution and the rights it affords are fundamental
    and should be upheld despite any intervening factors...In the present case
    there was a clear constitutional violation of the defendants' right to a
    fair trial. No matter how heinous the alleged crimes, the Constitution 
    should not be compromised.

The judge ruled that the failure to object on the confrontation grounds
(The Amiraults objected that the seating arrangement was prejudicial) at the
trial did not waive this right because at the time of the trial the law was
too poorly developed. 

Also this is not a matter of using a protractor, as D.A. W. Reilly has 
complained. There is no question that the children did not testify facing 
their accusers in this case. Even the prosecution agrees that the angle 
between the child's line of sight and the defendant was at least 112 degrees.
Reilly is certainly not in an enviable position here. He will get skewered
no matter what he does; he might as well do the right thing.

Another popular misconception appearing on several talk shows is that
children "came forward." In no case, including the first, were accusations
made until the child was questioned several times. The mother of the first
child told the first social worker that she spent considerable time questioning
her son in August of 1984 and in April of 1984 had described the molestation
of an uncle to him. 

Furthermore, not only did police tell parents to ask their children about the
magic room, the secret room, and the clown (along with other abuse related
questioned; they told them that they should ask the questions "consistently"
because children often do not disclose abuse when first asked.
-------------
If calls to talk shows (Adler On Line and Claprod and Whitley)
are any indication, the reaction of the public is very mixed to the decision.