Ohio V. Clark Case Study

In the case of Ohio v. Clark, Darius Clark states that by using a three and a half year olds word as testimony, it violates his sixth and fourteenth amendment rights. He argues that this child is not “mature enough to give reliable testimony, uninfluenced by those who might try to shape what they say and unaffected by the pressure of a trial setting” (Denniston 2). Although the man pleaded guilty to the charges of child abuse and received 28 years of prison time, he knows that his sixth amendment right was violated and is fighting against it. The use of someone that “is incompetent to appear in court as a witness” violates the sixth amendment and the fourteenth amendment pertaining to the Due Process Clause filed under it in Section I (Ohio

to prostitute. Both children had evidence of abuse. This evidence came to light when the three year old was dropped off at his daycare provider by Darius Clark. “The 3-year-old had whip marks across his upper back and face. He was also bruised. The toddler had burns on her chest, face, arm and legs. She also had two black eyes and a badly bruised hand” (Grzegorek 1). The daycare provider then asked the child what had happened. At first, the child refused to tell the teacher what had happened saying only that he “fell.” When pressed he finally said that “Dee” did it. The teacher, not knowing who “Dee” was asked the child if “Dee” was big or small. The child replied that Dee was big, and the teacher came to the conclusion that the young child was being abused in the home setting. “Dee” being the accused, Darius

“The child, at three and a half years old, is incompetent to appear in court as a witness… If the child is incompetent to testify in court, why isn’t the child incompetent to testify out—make the same statement out of court?” (Ohio 2). This shows that the child, while he may be telling the truth, is still not seen as someone that is allowed to testify in court as a real witness to the crime. The misuse of the child’s words within the case of Darius Clark is again shown that he was not able to have real testimony presented in front of the court to be seen as real or not. While the child may have been afraid to talk about what had happened to him in front of the court, he still could have said something in front of a camera or even to the judge outside of the court so that there could be a real testimony for the accused to have seen or regarded as the truth. This man was rightly accused of abusing children, that much we know is true. However, the thought that someone may not know when or by whom they are being accused is a direct violation of the sixth amendment within the right to know who the prosecutors are and what they are charging you