HB3393 amends the Illinois Code of Criminal Procedure to revise the rules for taking testimony from certain vulnerable victims in criminal cases. The bill focuses on proceedings involving sexual assault, aggravated battery, and aggravated domestic battery, and it permits a court to allow a child victim or a victim with a moderate, severe, or profound intellectual disability, or a developmental disability, to testify outside the courtroom and be shown in court by closed-circuit television when the judge finds that in-court testimony would cause serious emotional distress, prevent reasonable communication, or likely cause severe adverse effects.
The measure also specifies who may be present with the witness, limits who may question the witness, requires the closed-circuit television operators to be unobtrusive, and preserves the defendant’s right to be in the courtroom and to communicate with the persons in the witness room by appropriate electronic means. It further provides that the procedure does not apply to pro se defendants, does not bar in-court identification of the defendant, and applies to pending as well as future prosecutions. The bill also removes a prior rebuttable presumption that children under 13 would testify outside the courtroom and replaces it with a case-by-case judicial finding that the closed-circuit testimony does not unduly prejudice the defendant.
Impact
HB3393 would amend Section 106B-5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, changing the standards and procedures for remote testimony by child victims and victims with intellectual or developmental disabilities. It narrows and clarifies the circumstances under which a court may order closed-circuit testimony, shifts the focus from an age-based presumption to individualized judicial findings, and codifies protections for both the witness and the defendant. The bill affects criminal prosecutions involving specified violent and sexual offenses and would be applied to cases pending on or after the effective date.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been framed as a procedural and victim-protection measure, with the text emphasizing accommodations for vulnerable witnesses and safeguards to reduce trauma during testimony. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of opposition or support in the available materials. Based on the statutory changes, the overall sentiment is best characterized as supportive of witness protection while also preserving core defendant rights.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the balance between protecting vulnerable victims from emotional harm and preserving the defendant’s confrontation and fair-trial rights. The bill addresses that tension by requiring a judicial finding that closed-circuit testimony will not unduly prejudice the defendant and by preserving the defendant’s presence in the courtroom and ability to communicate with the witness room. Another possible issue is the removal of the former rebuttable presumption for children under 13, which may be seen as either a narrowing of automatic protections or a more individualized and constitutionally cautious approach, depending on the perspective.