Mom to U.S. Supreme Court: Chris Simcox should be barred from grilling the girls he is accused of molesting

An Arizona mother wants the the nation's high court to prevent the man accused of molesting her daughter from personally cross-examining the girl.

A series of lower courts have refused to ban former kindergarten teacher and "militia" man Chris Simcox, who is acting as his own lawyer, from questioning his two child accusers in court. The mother's attorney announced in a statement Thursday that they filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States.

The petition asks the justices to answer these questions:  

• "Does a self-represented criminal defendant have the right to personally cross-examine his own child molestation victims at trial, even if it embarrasses or harasses them? 
• Under what circumstances may the court restrict a self-represented criminal defendant from personally cross-examining his own child molestation victims?"

At least three Supreme Court justices would have to agree to take on the case.

What's happened so far?

Simcox, a former Minuteman who gained fame for his "border vigilante" movement in the mid-2000s, was arrested in 2013 on suspicion of molesting two girls, 5 and 6 years old.

A trial has been delayed multiple times as prosecutors and Simcox debate the rights of the accuser vs. the accused.He is charged with two counts of child molestation, three counts of sexual conduct with a minor, and furnishing obscene material to minors, court records show. His trial is set to begin April 4 in Maricopa County Superior Court.

Attorney Jack Wilenchik, who is representing one of the mothers, said the petition requests the court to order a lawyer for Simcox or have the judge cross-examine the children instead of the defendant.

Both Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Jose Padilla and the Arizona Court of Appeals have ruled that Simcox has the right to personally cross-examine 7- and 8-year-old girls about the times they have told police that he touched them.

Padilla ruled in August that one of the girls may give testimony during the trial via “closed circuit" TV. The second girl will still be subject to a standard cross-examination inside the courtroom.

Wilenchik has argued that Padilla applied the wrong standards of law and said requiring the state to prove the girls would be traumatized was an unreasonably high standard. The attorney then filed a special petition on behalf of one of the girls which then put case’s fate in the hands of the state’s Supreme Court.

The Arizona Supreme Court declined to weigh in on the case due to insufficient evidence of trauma, according to court documents.

Lower court judges have ruled that, because of the protection of the Constitution’s Sixth Amendment, Simcox has the right to confront the witnesses face-to-face while representing himself unless the state provides appropriate evidence that trauma may occur and case-specific findings that justify the restriction of this right.

Republic reporter Megan Cassidy contributed to this article.