Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Section 30-9-17 (Repl.Pamp.1984) and SCRA 1986, 5-504 (Repl.Pamp.1992). The depositions were taped prior to trial, and Fair-weather was not allowed in the same room with his children, but rather sat in an adja cent room out of the presence of the children during the depositions, viewing their testimony on a monitor. His attorney was present at the depositions and was able to cross-examine the boys. Fairweather was not able to speak with his attorney during the depositions, but was able to have messages handed to him. He was also able to meet with his attorney during recesses. Because the trial court allowed the use of the videotaped depositions, Fairweather claims the boys testified outside of his presence and that he was denied his right to confront his accusers. The Sixth Amend 461 (<HOLDING>). A face-to-face confrontation is not “an 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that defendants absence from courtroom during childs testimony to jury instead of presenting videotape of childs testimony to jury with defendant present violated confrontation clause in absence of necessity or defendants consent (B) holding that error in admission of videotape was harmless because it was cumulative of childs properly admitted live testimony (C) holding that the improper admission of hearsay testimony concerning a childs report of sexual abuse warranted reversal where the childs otherwise uncorroborated testimony was the sole basis for conviction and the hearsay augmented the childs testimony with additional detail in certain areas (D) holding harmless the improper admission of a social workers hearsay testimony concerning a childs report of sexual abuse where the credibility of the childs testimony was supported by other witnesses (E) holding that a videotape of the childs testimony could not be submitted to the jury for its unrestricted repeated viewing during deliberations
Output (English): holding that the improper admission of hearsay testimony concerning a childs report of sexual abuse warranted reversal where the childs otherwise uncorroborated testimony was the sole basis for conviction and the hearsay augmented the childs testimony with additional detail in certain areas