Is the Iowa Supreme Court paying attention to child victims of abuse?
Shocking ruling forces children to testify face-to-face with defendants
Trigger warning: This story contains descriptions of sexual assault against a child.
The state called its next witness. But she wasn’t ready to face the man accused of kidnapping and sexually abusing her.
After several minutes of coaxing, a terrified 15-year-old walked into the courtroom, escorted by a prosecutor, and sat on the stand. When asked her name, she paused, blurted it out, and gulped for air.
As she related what happened on Nov. 11, 2021, she kept her eyes down. She rubbed her brow and her eyes with her fingers. Her hands worked as blinders to keep from seeing the 67-year-old man in orange-and-white jail garb sitting about a dozen paces from her.
She had told the story multiple times over the last 3 ½ years – to police officers, a sexual assault nurse examiner, to attorneys, and to jurors. This was her second time testifying. The first time was by closed-circuit video, so she did not have to testify in the presence of the defendant, Michael Dunbar.
But last year, the Iowa Supreme Court said children must face their alleged perpetrator. In State v. White, the court ruled that allowing child witnesses to testify through a one-way closed-circuit television system violates a defendant’s confrontation rights under the Iowa Constitution. The decision flew in the face of federal and state precedent and made Iowa an outlier in how it treats child victims.
In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court said in Maryland v. Craig, “a State's interest in the physical and psychological well-being of child abuse victims may be sufficiently important to outweigh, at least in some cases, a defendant's right to face his or her accusers in court.”
The Iowa Supreme Court decision, written by Justice David May, was shocking but largely overlooked, because it came down on the same day as the Planned Parenthood v. Reynolds decision. With that ruling, the court allowed the “fetal heartbeat” abortion law to go into effect. Yes, the irony is rich.
No quick fix exists
This year, the Iowa Legislature passed a proposed constitutional amendment that would correct the White ruling. But this is just the first step in a years-long process. To become Iowa law, the constitutional amendment must pass two legislative sessions and then go on an election ballot. The earliest that could happen would be 2027. How many more convictions will be overturned? How many more children will be abused, and how many more will have to testify face-to-face?
The Iowa House passed a bill this session allowing children to testify via two-way video, which the White ruling didn’t address. The Senate did not take up the legislation.
I have mixed feelings about the approach. What prosecutor wants to use a child as a test case, to see if two-way testimony survives constitutional scrutiny?
The White ruling already presents a Sophie’s Choice for prosecutors: Do you risk further victimizing the child by having them testify face-to-face, or do you risk letting a convicted abuser be released from prison?
Not surprisingly, studies have shown that testifying can deepen the trauma suffered by abuse victims. Therapists say that facing the perpetrator can reverse the progress their young patients have made.
I won’t forget the 8-year-old who testified via closed circuit before the White ruling. She rocked back and forth and swayed in her chair as she described her sexual abuse by a relative. The defense attorneys and the prosecutors sat with her, and the defendant and the jurors watched from the courtroom.
After testifying, the 8-year-old girl’s night terrors returned and her behavior in school worsened.
The conviction in that case is now on appeal. That case offers a prime opportunity for the Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling in White.
Reliving her assault
After the White ruling, the Supreme Court ordered a new trial for Michael Dunbar, who was convicted of first-degree kidnapping and second-degree sexual abuse on Oct. 21, 2022. He was sentenced to life in prison.
On April 29, 2025, Dunbar went back to court, this time choosing to forgo a jury.
The 15-year-old testified – again – what happened when she was 12 years old:
After cheer-leading at a basketball game, she got on the wrong DART bus and ended up back at the Salvation Army on East Euclid after doing a loop on the bus and returning to her middle school, which was now closed for the night. Dressed in her cheer skirt, she sought refuge in the store from the cold. An older man she didn’t know offered her a ride home.
He drove her in a different direction, however, to a remote area. The defendant made comments about her body and put his fingers into her vagina, she told the court. He then drove her to the west side of Des Moines, and he let her out to go the bathroom. That’s when she ran from him, and a woman found her flagging down cars on Ingersoll Avenue.
As she told the story, her breath became labored and tears flowed. She took a break and needed help walking from the stand.
Under cross examination, however, the girl stood taller. She looked the defense attorney in the eye as he quizzed her about details from 3 ½ years ago. She answered more confidently, even defiantly.
He asked her about an exaggeration she told police about how the abuse affected her, a statement she later corrected. “Why exaggerate?” the defense attorney asked.
She turned to the judge: “Can I ask you a question?”
She leaned over and asked whether she could ask the defense attorney if he had ever been homeless. She had.
“Imagine being homeless and no one put a buck in your cup,” she told the defense attorney. “I wanted someone to listen, like you are doing now.”
If only Justice May and the rest of the Supreme Court were listening, too.
“True Justice” is part of the Iowa Writers’ Collaborative. Check out the lineup of writers and consider subscribing. I highly recommend, in particular, “Minding the Gaps,” by Kali White VanBaale. She writes sensitive and sophisticated columns about people struggling with mental health care and the criminal justice system.
For me, this Iowa Supreme Court ruling exposes the failure of originalism. I'm very interested in history, and it can be fascinating to read about the original understanding of certain ideas. But our rights should not be constrained or defined by what a group of white men believed in the 1850s. As Chief Justice Christensen wrote in dissent, "Originalism has limits. It cannot account for a technology that didn’t exist in 1857—when the Iowa Constitution was ratified—and a type of case that would not have been brought in 1857."
And thank you, Lynn, for the shout out! Next week is Children's Mental Health Awareness week and your stories here really hit me. The re-traumatization and PTSD...