## Facts

- Israel G. Romero was tried in Texas for aggravated assault stemming from a late-night shooting outside the Cosmos nightclub in Houston.
- The State alleged Romero ran toward the club around 1:45 a.m. and fired several shots; a security guard returned fire and struck Romero, who fled in a pickup truck and allegedly fired again as he left.
- Cesar Hiran Vasquez, a taxi driver parked outside the club, was the State’s key eyewitness.
- Vasquez told prosecutors he feared Romero and stated he would rather go to jail than testify because he was worried for himself and his children.
- The trial court threatened sanctions and imposed a $500 fine for failure to comply with the subpoena; Vasquez ultimately appeared to testify.
- Vasquez testified wearing dark sunglasses, a baseball cap pulled low, and a high-collared jacket fastened to obscure his mouth, jaw, and part of his nose, effectively hiding almost all of his face.
- Romero objected that the disguise violated his Sixth Amendment confrontation right and his right to a fair trial; the trial court overruled the objections and allowed the testimony, including an in-court identification.
- The record reflected Romero already knew Vasquez’s name and address at the time of trial.
- The jury convicted Romero; the court of appeals reversed on Confrontation Clause grounds, and the State sought discretionary review.

## Issues

1. Whether permitting an adult eyewitness to testify in substantial facial disguise violates the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses.
2. Whether any Confrontation Clause violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Decision

- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that allowing Vasquez to testify in a disguise that concealed almost all of his face violated Romero’s Sixth Amendment confrontation right.
- The court concluded the State did not show the disguise was necessary to further an important public interest under the governing confrontation framework.
- The court held the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court affirmed the court of appeals’ judgment reversing the conviction and remanding.

## Legal Principles

- The Confrontation Clause embodies a strong preference for face-to-face confrontation at trial.
- A departure from face-to-face confrontation is constitutionally permissible only when (1) it is necessary to further an important public interest and (2) the reliability of the testimony is otherwise assured.
- Reliability is assessed by the extent to which the traditional confrontation elements remain protected: physical presence, oath, cross-examination, and observation of demeanor by the factfinder.
- Substantial facial concealment by an adult witness can impair confrontation by compromising physical presence and limiting the jury’s ability to assess demeanor.
- Measures claimed to protect witness safety must materially advance that interest; when the defendant already knows the witness’s identity and location, facial concealment may provide little protection and may fail the necessity requirement.
- A Confrontation Clause violation of this type is subject to constitutional harmless-error review, requiring the State to show the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The court held that permitting a key adult eyewitness to testify while disguising nearly his entire face violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation because the State did not establish necessity and the disguise impaired demeanor-based credibility assessment; the constitutional error was not harmless, so the conviction could not stand.


Romero v. State, 173 S.W.3d 502 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)