## Facts

- Paul Ludwig was charged with multiple sexual offenses against his five-year-old daughter, including rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, incest, indecent assault, corrupting the morals of a minor, and endangering the welfare of children.
- At an initial preliminary hearing, the child took the stand, said she did not remember what happened, and became unresponsive to further questioning.
- The Commonwealth sought permission for the child to testify by alternative means and presented psychologist testimony that the child had “emotional freezing,” the condition could recur, and her progress could be harmed if she testified in her father’s physical presence.
- The trial court permitted the child to testify by one-way closed-circuit television (from another room), and the child later testified that way at a second preliminary hearing; the case was bound over for trial.
- At trial, the same procedure was used: the child could hear and answer questions but could not see inside the courtroom.
- Ludwig was convicted and sentenced; the Superior Court affirmed over a confrontation-clause challenge.

## Issues

1. Whether allowing a child victim to testify by closed-circuit television violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.
2. Whether the same procedure violated the Pennsylvania Constitution’s confrontation guarantee, including the right to meet witnesses “face to face” under Article I, § 9.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the closed-circuit procedure was permissible under the federal Confrontation Clause as construed by controlling U.S. Supreme Court precedent requiring a case-specific showing of necessity.
- The court held, however, that the procedure violated Article I, § 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution because it denied the defendant physical, face-to-face confrontation with the witness.
- The court reversed the Superior Court’s order and vacated Ludwig’s conviction and sentence, remanding for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.

## Legal Principles

- Federal confrontation doctrine permits limits on face-to-face confrontation when necessary to further an important public policy and when the procedure preserves core confrontation features such as oath, cross-examination, and observation of demeanor, supported by a case-specific necessity finding.
- Article I, § 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides greater confrontation protection than the Sixth Amendment and includes a stricter face-to-face requirement.
- Pennsylvania courts may interpret the state constitution to provide more protection than the federal constitution, even when the challenged procedure is federally permissible.
- A one-way closed-circuit arrangement that removes the witness from the defendant’s physical presence and prevents the witness from seeing the courtroom infringes the face-to-face confrontation right guaranteed by Article I, § 9.

## Conclusion

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that, although one-way closed-circuit testimony by a child victim can satisfy federal confrontation requirements when necessity is shown, it violates Pennsylvania’s constitutional right to face-to-face confrontation; the conviction and sentence were therefore vacated.


Commonwealth v. Ludwig, 594 A.2d 281 (Pa. 1991)