Gerald Roberson was convicted by a Superior Court jury of sexually abusing his young daughter N.R., who reported in June 2022 that her father had molested her starting when she was either four or six years old. The girl told investigators at Nemours Children's Hospital that the most recent abuse occurred two months before her hospital visit, though the examination revealed no physical evidence. A week later, N.R. provided more detailed statements to the Children's Advocacy Center, explaining that Roberson had threatened to "whoop" her if she told anyone about the abuse.
The state successfully moved under 11 Del. C. ยง 3514 to allow N.R. to testify remotely using closed-circuit television from a separate room, with defense counsel present for cross-examination while the defendant and jury watched on a screen. Chief Justice Seitz, writing for the majority, held that the statute satisfied Delaware's confrontation clause requirements because "even though the jury hears the testimony by CCTV, the complaining witness is still subject to cross-examination." The court relied heavily on its 2001 decision in McGriff v. State, which upheld a related statute permitting child hearsay statements even without any cross-examination opportunity.
The majority firmly rejected Roberson's argument that Delaware's "face to face" language requires literal physical presence, writing that "a strict reading of the phrase 'face to face' would virtually foreclose the State's ability to admit hearsay testimony against a criminal defendant, including those statements determined to be particularly trustworthy, substantially eliminating many exceptions to the rule prohibiting hearsay testimony." Chief Justice Seitz emphasized that Delaware has "an interest in protecting young children from testifying" while "prosecuting individuals in cases of sexual and physical abuse involving children."
The case reached the high court after Roberson challenged both the remote testimony procedure and the prosecutor's closing argument. The Superior Court had granted the state's CCTV motion following testimony from N.R.'s counselor that the child would suffer "severe emotional distress" and "shut down" if required to testify in Roberson's presence. The trial court sentenced Roberson to 125 years in prison after the jury convicted him on all charges, including three counts of first-degree rape and continuous sexual abuse of a child.
Roberson's attorneys argued that allowing remote testimony violated his right under Article I, Section 7 of the Delaware Constitution to confront witnesses "face to face." But Chief Justice Seitz noted that at least nine states permit similar CCTV testimony despite face-to-face language in their confrontation clauses, while only three states, including Pennsylvania, require physical presence. The court also rejected claims that the prosecutor improperly vouched for the child's credibility during closing arguments, finding the prosecutor's rhetorical questions about why the girl would subject herself to the criminal process were permissible responses to defense attacks on her credibility.
Justice Traynor dissented on the constitutional issue, arguing the majority wrongly relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Maryland v. Craig and "outdated Confrontation Clause analysis found in Ohio v. Roberts." She wrote that Delaware's constitution "is more explicit than the Sixth Amendment in its requirement of face-to-face confrontation" and that "the ordinary, everyday meaning of this clause is that the accused and the witness must be within each other's sight and presence." Traynor acknowledged the "laudable goal" of sparing children emotional trauma but insisted that "Article I, Section 7 of the Delaware Constitution requires face-to-face confrontation, and we are not at liberty to ignore it."
The decision reinforces Delaware's approach to balancing defendants' confrontation rights against child protection concerns in sexual abuse cases. The ruling follows the trend in most jurisdictions that permit CCTV testimony for child victims when necessary to prevent serious emotional distress, while maintaining cross-examination rights that courts view as the core constitutional protection.