Pitts v. Mississippi

607 U. S. ____ (2025) · 11/24/25

A defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to meet his accusers face to face may not be denied without case-specific findings of necessity, notwithstanding Mississippi’s right-to-screening statute, Miss. Code Ann. §99–43–101(2)(g).

Ordinarily, the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause “guarantees the defendant a face-to-face meeting with witnesses appearing before the trier of fact.” Coy v. Iowa, 487 U. S. 1012, 1016 (1988). In child-abuse cases, however, that rule sometimes gives way. Consistent with the Sixth Amendment, a court may screen a child witness from the defendant when “necessary to protect [the child] from trauma that would be caused by testifying in the physical presence of the defendant, at least where such trauma would impair the child’s ability to communicate.” Mary land v. Craig, 497 U. S. 836, 857…

Still, before invoking this procedure, a court must proceed with care. It must “hear evidence” and make a “case- specific” finding of “[t]he requisite . . . necessity.” Id., at 855. Simply pointing to a state statute that authorizes screening, even one premised on “generalized finding[s]” of necessity, will not suffice. Coy, 487 U. S., at 1021. Because the Mississippi Supreme Court departed from these principles, we reverse.