## Facts

- Robert Stincer was tried in Kentucky state court for first-degree sodomy involving two minor girls.
- After the jury was sworn but before evidence was presented, the trial judge held an in-chambers hearing to determine the girls’ competency to testify.
- Stincer was excluded from the competency hearing; his counsel attended and participated.
- The questioning at the hearing was limited to whether the children could observe, remember, and narrate facts and could distinguish truth from falsehood.
- The trial judge found both children competent.
- At trial in open court, the prosecutor and defense counsel asked some similar background and truth–lie questions, and defense counsel cross-examined the children with Stincer present.
- Defense counsel did not ask the court to reconsider the competency findings after the children testified.
- Stincer was convicted.

## Issues

1. Whether excluding the defendant from an in-chambers competency hearing for child witnesses violates the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.
2. Whether the exclusion violates the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process right to be present at critical stages of trial.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Kentucky Supreme Court.
- The Court held the Confrontation Clause was not violated because Stincer had a full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses in open court with the defendant present.
- The Court held due process was not violated because the competency hearing was not a critical stage where the defendant’s presence would have contributed meaningfully to fairness.

## Legal Principles

- The Confrontation Clause principally protects a defendant’s opportunity for effective cross-examination to test reliability; it does not guarantee the defendant’s presence at every proceeding involving witnesses.
- When a witness is cross-examined at trial in the defendant’s presence, exclusion from a preliminary, limited competency inquiry does not necessarily impair confrontation rights, especially where hearing questions can be repeated in open court.
- Competency hearings typically address capacity to perceive, remember, communicate, and appreciate the obligation to tell the truth, rather than the substantive facts of the alleged offense.
- Due process guarantees a right to be present at critical stages of trial when the defendant’s presence would contribute to the fairness of the procedure; absence violates due process only upon a showing that it affected fairness or reliability.
- A trial court’s competency determination may be revisited during trial, including on motion after substantive testimony.

## Conclusion

The Court held that excluding a defendant from an in-chambers competency hearing for child witnesses did not violate the Sixth Amendment where full cross-examination occurred at trial, and it did not violate due process because the defendant’s presence would have added little to the fairness of the limited competency inquiry.


Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730 (1987)