A Common Pleas Court judge is considering arguments made Monday, Sept., 8, about whether a 9-year-old boy should have to come to Butler County to testify or testify remotely from his home state of Michigan in a hearing in the indecent assault case against the alleged suspect.

Arguments were made in a hearing for Cecil Hallin, 43, of Clay Township, who was charged by state police with felony counts of indecent assault of a person less than 13 years old, endangering the welfare of a child and corruption of minors, and a misdemeanor charge of indecent exposure.

Police allege Hallin abused the boy while serving as his foster father between Dec. 28, 2023, and May 23, 2024. The child detailed the alleged abuse in a forensic interview conducted by the Children’s Advocacy Center of Lawrence County on June 13.

During the interview, the boy said Hallin forced him to watch pornography, taught him to masturbate and committed multiple physical acts of sexual assault, including kissing him without his consent.

Police received a ChildLine report filed by the boy’s mother on May 23, 2024.

In her motion requesting a “taint” hearing, defense attorney Dachan Furnace questioned if the boy’s testimony has been tainted or influenced by external factors and asked for a competency hearing to determine if he has the memory capacity to recall the alleged incident.

During the hearing, the boy’s guardian and cousin Donjanae Anderson testified remotely from Detroit that he would be uncomfortable testifying with Hallin in the room. Anderson said the boy sees a therapist five days a week at school and saw one at home over the summer.

Anderson said she would miss time at work and the boy would miss school if she had to bring him back to the county to testify. She said she is paid hourly as a caregiver and doesn't get paid if she doesn’t work. She said she is the guardian of the boy and his older brother, and she also has a 1-year-old boy of her own and lives with her father, who has health issues. Anderson said the boy has family in the Pittsburgh area, but has no communication with them.

The boy should be allowed to testify remotely because requiring him to testify in court would create a financial hardship for Anderson, said assistant district attorney Laura Pitchford.

Furnace argued that observing a witness live is important to determine the witness’s competency. She said remote testimony is permitted, but it must be weighed against the defense’s right to confrontation.

She said the inconvenience of bringing the boy to court is not a compelling enough reason to allow remote testimony, and no testimony from a psychologist was offered to show the boy’s appearance in court with Hallin would result in serious emotional distress, which is required to allow remote testimony. She requested an order for the boy to appear for the taint hearing.

Pitchford said she is not making an argument for emotional distress. Instead, she said the boy missing school and Anderson’s financial hardship are the reasons the boy should be allowed to testify remotely.

If a problem arises during remote testimony, the hearing could be reconvened with the boy testifying in court, she said.

Furnace said reconvening the hearing would prolong the issue. She said the case hinges on the boy’s testimony and competency to testify.

Judge Joseph Kubit said the boy can miss school, but Anderson cares for three children and has an ailing father.

Furnace suggested scheduling the hearing on a Friday so the boy won’t have to go to school the day after the hearing.

Kubit said he will take the arguments under advisement and did not immediately issue a ruling.