No. 20-921

Braulio Marcelo Castillo v. Virginia

Lower Court: Virginia
Docketed: 2021-01-08
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: child-witness closed-circuit-testimony confrontation-clause crawford-precedent crawford-v-washington criminal-trial due-process maryland-v-craig sixth-amendment
Key Terms:
JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2021-02-19
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does the Confrontation Clause allow a non-victim child witness to testify against his father via two-way closed-circuit television when the witness cannot see his father and does not know that his father is on trial for murder?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does the Confrontation Clause allow a non-victim child witness to testify against his father via twoway closed-circuit television when the witness cannot see his father and does not know that his father is on trial for murder? 2. Given that Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), removed the underpinnings of Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990), should Craig be overruled? ii STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES Castillo v. Commonwealth, Record No. 191028, Virginia Supreme Court. Petition for Appeal denied February 27, 2020; Petition for Rehearing denied August 5, 2020. Castillo v. Commonwealth, No. 0140-17-4, Virginia Court of Appeals. Judgment entered June 4, 2019. Commonwealth v. Castillo, CR26450-00-01-02, Loudoun County Circuit Court. Judgement entered December 30, 2016.

Docket Entries

2021-02-22
Petition DENIED.
2021-01-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021.
2021-01-19
Waiver of right of respondent Virginia to respond filed.
2021-01-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 8, 2021)

Attorneys

Braulio M. Castillo
Joseph Douglas KingKing, Campbell, Poretz PLLC, Petitioner
Virginia
Toby Jay HeytensOffice of the Attorney General, Respondent