Bill
HB 3393
Expands CCTV testimony to child victims and people with intellectual/developmental disabilities, with court findings, safeguards, and a 30-day tolling window if denied.
Status: Introduced Feb 18, 2025; filed Feb 26, 2025; referred to Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence; in committee upon adjournment (June 28, 2025). Companion: SB 1796.
Code affected: 725 ILCS 5/106B-5 (Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963)
Purpose
- To revise the rules governing when a victim who is a child or a person with an intellectual or developmental disability may testify outside the courtroom and have that testimony shown to the courtroom by closed‑circuit television (CCTV).
- To expand who may be eligible for out‑of‑courtroom testimony, add procedural safeguards, and add a short tolling provision for speedy‑trial deadlines when the State’s request is denied.
Key provisions and changes
- Expanded categories: The bill explicitly authorizes a court to order testimony by CCTV for (a) a victim who is a child under age 18, and (b) a person with a moderate, severe, or profound intellectual disability or another developmental disability (examples listed include cerebral palsy, epilepsy, autism).
- Judicial finding required: Before ordering CCTV testimony, the judge must find that in‑court testimony would cause the child or disabled person to (i) be unable to reasonably communicate or (ii) suffer severe emotional distress likely to cause severe adverse effects.
- Rebuttable presumption for very young children: The bill includes a provision establishing a rebuttable presumption that a victim under age 13 should testify outside the courtroom by CCTV (overcomeable by the defendant by clear and convincing evidence).
- Defendant protections and limits:
- The defendant must remain in the courtroom during CCTV testimony and, if a jury is present, may not communicate with the jury.
- The defendant may communicate with counsel and others present with the witness by appropriate electronic means.
- The court must make a finding that use of CCTV will not prejudice the defendant.
- The section does not apply if the defendant represents themselves (pro se).
- Who may question and who may be present: Only the prosecuting attorney, defense attorney, and judge may question the witness; access to the room with the witness is limited to a short list (attorneys, judge, CCTV operators, court security, and persons the court finds contribute to the witness’s well‑being, e.g., a parent or therapist).
- Speedy‑trial tolling: If the court denies the State’s request to take the child’s testimony outside the courtroom, the court must toll the speedy‑trial period under Section 103‑5 for 30 days to permit the State to renew the motion before trial.
- Other: Operators should be unobtrusive; the section does not prevent both defendant and witness being in courtroom together for identification purposes.
Who is affected
- Victims: Children (now broadly those under 18) and persons with significant intellectual or developmental disabilities may be more frequently permitted to testify via CCTV, protecting them from potentially traumatic in‑court testimony.
- Defendants: Impacts on confrontation rights are addressed by requiring presence of the defendant in the courtroom and court findings that CCTV will not prejudice the defense; defense counsel’s ability to question is preserved.
- Prosecutors and courts: Adds procedures and findings courts must make, and gives prosecutors an opportunity (via 30‑day tolling) to re‑present motions if initially denied.
- Court operations: Requires use and operation of CCTV systems and allocation of space/personnel to accommodate remote testimony.
Procedural/timing notes
- Applies to prosecutions pending on or commenced on or after the effective date of the amendatory Act (text references existing applicability language).
- Legislative progress to date: sponsor Rep. Adam M. Niemerg; several co‑sponsors added in March 2025; currently in committee.
Potential impacts to monitor
- Increased use of CCTV for young and disabled victims, improving victim comfort and participation.
- Possible defense concerns or challenges alleging prejudice or confrontation‑clause implications; the bill seeks to balance these with explicit safeguards and a required judicial prejudice finding.
- Minor trial scheduling effects because of the 30‑day tolling mechanism when requests are denied.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
