for the student to present his side of the story is all that is required prior to discipline; due process does not require counsel, confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses supporting the charge, or the student’s ability to call his own witnesses); Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 156-57, 94 S.Ct. 1633, 40 L.Ed.2d 15 (1974) (upholding procedures whereby, prior to discharge, a government employee is provided advanced written notice of reasons for proposed discharge, material on which notice is based, and the right to respond to charges orally and in writing). 19 . Child victims of abuse and neglect might be further traumatized by the experience of facing their abuser and being subject to cross examination. Cf. State v. Uelentrup, 910 S.W.2d 718, 722 (Mo.App. E.D.1995) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, people who might otherwise
holding in aggravated sexual assault case that testimony regarding psychological trauma suffered by child victim and its physical manifestations properly admitted recognizing trauma that new trial would likely bring to victim of child sexual assault holding the harmed victim need not be the victim of the offense of conviction holding that it was error to admit a videotaped interview of an alleged child victim of sexual abuse because the defendant was deprived of the right to crossexamine the child recognizing the purpose of missouris child victim witness protection law sec 491675 et seq as an attempt to minimize the emotional and psychological trauma to the alleged child victim