FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT FEB RUARY 13 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK

Senior Circuit Judg e Coxelec ted to participate in this decision pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § * 46(c)
. [ P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 02- 13654

________________________ D
. C
. D ocketN o. 00 -001 09 C R -N -2 UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff -A pp el l ee , ve r s us A N I TA Y A TES, A N T O N F
. P U S Z T A I, D efen d an t s-A p p el l an t s.

________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom t he U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rt h e M i d d l e D i s tr i c to f A l a b a ma

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 13, 2006) B e f o r e E DMON DS ON , C h i e f J u d g e , T J OF L AT , AN DE R S ON , B I R C H, DU B I NA , B L AC K, C ARNE S , B AR KE T T , HU L L , MAR C US , WI L S ON , P R YO R a n d C OX , * C i rcu i tJu d g es. C O X , C i rc ui tJudg e:2

T he c our tt ook thi s c a s e e n ba nc t o c ons i de rw he th e rw i tne s s t e s t i m ony pres ent ed on a t el evi si on m on i t or ata c ri m i nal t ri al i n M on t go m er y, A l abam a, by l i ve, tw o - w a y v id e o c o n f

e r e n c e w ith w itn e s s e s in A u s tr a lia , v io la te d th e D e f e n d a n ts ’ S ix th Am e n d m e n tr i g h tt o c o n f r o n tth e wi t n e s s e s a g a i n s tt h e m . Ho l d i n g t h a ti td i d , we
v a c a te th e c o n v ic tio n s a n d r e m a n d f o ra n e w tr ia l. I . B AC KG RO UN D & P RO CE DU RA L HI S T OR Y A nt on P uszt ai and A ni t a Y at es (“ D ef endant s” ) w er e tri ed i n the M i dd l e D i stri ct
o f A la b a m a f

o rm a il f r a u d , c o n s p i r a c y to d e f r a u d th e U n ite d S ta te s , c o n s p ir a c y to
c om m i t m one y l a unde r i ng, a nd va r i ous pr e s c r i pt i on- drug- r e l a t e d of f e ns e s a r i s i ng out
o f th e ir i n v o lv e m e n t in th e N o r f o lk M e n ’s C lin ic , a n I n te r n e t p h a r m a c y b a s e d in C la n to n , A la b a m a . A tthe pr e - tr i a l m ot i on s t a ge , the G ove r nm e nt m ove d f or a n or de ra l l ow i ng t he i nt rodu ct i on of t es t i m on y fr om tw o w i tness es i n A ustra l i a by m ea ns of l i ve, tw o-w ay vi deo con fe re nce. (R
. 2-24 8. ) I n sup po rtof i t s m ot i on , t he G ov er nm entst at ed t hat M r . P a ul F l e t c he r C hr i s t i a n ( w ho a l l e ge dl y pr oc e s s e d c us t om e r I nt e r ne tpa y m e nt s f or the D ef endant s) and D r. T i bo r K on ko l y ( w ho se nam e the D ef endant s a l l egedl y use d
o n In tern et d ru g p re sc r ip ti o n s) w er e b o th “ess en ti al w itn es se s to th e g o v er n m en t’ s
ca se -i n-chi ef

. ” (I d. a t 1 .) T h e G o v e r n m e n t f u r th e rs u b m itte d : “[ a ]lth o u g h b o th
w itn e s s e s a r e w illin g to te s tif y a t tr ia l v ia v id e o te le c o n f e r e n c e , th e y a r e u n w illin g toYate s’ s wri tt e n o pp os iti on to t heGo ve rnme nt’ s mo tio n is in t here c ord o n a

pp e a l, b ut a 1 search fo r P uszt ai’s opposition is fruitless. The docke t sheet does not contain an entry for the document. B ut Pusz tai apparently submitt ed a response to the Government’s motion, becausethe Gover nment cites his responsein its reply bri ef
. P u s z t ai objecte d to the introduction of the testimony at trial, howe ver, a

nd the Gover

nment does not contend that the issue is not preserve d. 3 tr a ve l t o t he U ni t e d S t a t e s . B e c a us e the y a r e b eyo nd the gove r nm e nt ’ s s ubpoe na p o w ers, th e g o v ern m en tseek s p erm i ssi o n fo r th ese w i tn esses t o t est i fy t h ro u g h th e u se of t el ec on fe re nce f

ac i l i t i es . ” (I

d
. at2. ) D e f e nda nt s oppos e d the m ot i on, a r gui ng tha ta dm i s s i on of s uc h t e s t i m ony
w oul d vi ol a t e the i rS i xt h A m e ndm en t ri g ht s t o c onf r ont a t i on be c a us e i tw oul d de ny them fa ce -t o-fa ce encoun t er s w i th t he w i tness es agai nstthem
. (R
. 2-26 1; R
. 3- 3 1 4 at 3 .) 1 T h e d i stri ctco u rtg ran t ed th e G o v ern m en t ’ s m o t i o n , fi n d i n g th atD efen d a n t s’ confront at i on ri gh t s w ou l d n otbe vi ol at ed because t he t w o -w ay v i deo con fe re nce
w o u ld a ll o w D e f

e n d a n ts to s e e th e w itn e s s e s a n d th e w itn e s s e s to s e e D e f e n d a n ts du ri ng the t es t i m on y. (R
. 3-31 4. ) T he courtfoun d t hatthe A ustra l i an w i tness es w er e
u n w i l l i n g to tr a v e l to th e U n ite d S ta te s f o rtr ia l, ( id
. a t 2
. ) ; th e D e f e n d a n t s d i d not
c ont e s tthi s f

i ndi ng. T he c our ta l s o f ound tha tthe G ove r nm e nta s s e r t e d a n “ i m por t a nt pu bl i c pol i cy of prov i di ng t he fa ct -f i nd erw i th cruci al evi dence, ” (I d. at19
. ), and t hat “th e G o v e r n m e n t a ls o h a s a n in te r e s t in e x p e d itio u s ly a n d ju s tly r e s o lv in g th e c a s e .” (I d. at22
. )The re cord ref lects, howeve r, some technical dif ficulties that impacted the a biliti es of the 2 witn es s es , Def

endants a nd counsel to seeeac h other a nd to communicate during thevideo conferenc e. F or example, duringChristian’s testimony , the followingexchang e occurre d: Q
. [ b y A s s i s t antU
. S
. Att o r

n e y] I’ m g o i n g t o a s k t h e g e n t l e m a n

controllingthis to t ake a

look around the cour troom heres o you can se e e ve ry bo dy that’ s in thi s roo m and

a sk you if you see Mr . Pusz tai. [Came ra sc ann ingthec ourt

ro om]

. . . Si r, haveyou

se e n Mr. Pus zta i? A. [by Christian] I think so. It’s a littl e bit hard to focus on the camera . There , arewe? Ye s . (R.11 at 106.) Ko nkoly ’s ina

bil ity to s e e c le arly

wa s a lso a

prob le m: Q
. [ b y A s s i s t ant U
. S
. Att o r n e y] Do y ou kn o w whetheror not y ou

would rec ognize the partner that you 4 B ec ause the court room w as no tou t fi tt ed w i th v i deo equ i pm ent , t he t ri al w as t em po ra ri l y m ov ed t o th e U ni t ed S t at es A t t orney’ s off i ce for the vi deo con fe re nce. A ttr i a l , D e f

e nda nt s obj e c t e d on S i xth A m e ndm e ntgr ounds t o t he i ntr oduc t i on of t he t e s t i m ony . ( R
. 8 a t347- 48; R
. 11 a t103. ) C hr i s t i a n a nd K onkol y w e r e s w or n i n by a deput y c l er k of the fe dera l di stri ct court and a ckno w l edged t hatthey und er st oo d t hat the i rt e s t i m ony w a s unde r o at h an d s ubj e c tt o pe na l ty f orpe r j ur y . T he G ove r nm e nt th e n q u est i o n ed th e w i tn esses b y m ean s o f t w o -w ay v i d eo co n feren ce. B o th D e f e nda nt s , the j ur y , a nd the j udge c oul d s e e t he t e s t i f y i ng w i tne s s e s on a t e l e vi s i on
m o n it o r; an d th e w itn es se s co u ld se e th e tem p o ra ry co u rtro o m in th e U .S . A tt o rn ey ’s
c o n f e r e n c e r o o m. Ea c h D e f e n d a n t ’ s a t t o r n e y c r o s s - e x a mi n e d b o th K o n k o l y a nd 2have referre d to that was at the dinner wi th Mr. Pus zta i? A. [by Konkoly] Ithink so. [Came ra sc ann ingthec ourt

ro om] . . . May Ihave a close look at the lady on the left-ha

nd side in the back, please ? T h e C o urt : Y e s , yo um a y. Tec hnician: This is the closest Ican zoom in. [b y Ko nk o l y] I f you c o u ld g o to the sid e a bit , please . Icannot se e from the corner of the screen. [Scanning ] . . . No Ic an ’ t n o t [ s ic ] s ay that cate g orically . Icannot recogn ize the fac e at the present time. (R.11 at 161-62.) 5 Chr i s t i a n. The j ur y f

ou nd the D e f

e nd a nt s gu i l ty on a l l c ou nt s . D e f e nd a nt s a pp ea l th o se co n v i ct i o n s. I n a p u b lis h e d o p in io n , a t h r e e - ju d g e p a n e l o f

th is c o u r t, a p p ly in g th e ru le
a r t i c u l a t e d i n M

a r y la n d v . C r a ig , 49 7 U
. S
. 83 6, 11 0 S
. C t . 31 57 (199 0), hel d t hat D e f e nda nt s ’ S i x t h A m e ndm e ntc onf r ont a t i on r i ght s w e r e vi ol a t e d by t he a dm i s s i on
o f th e te s tim o n y o f th e s e w itn e s s e s b y m e a n s o f tw o - w a y v i d e o c o n f e r e n c e . U

ni t ed Stat e s v . Yat es , 3 9 1 F
. 3d 11 82 (11t h C i r. 20 04 ). T he pa ne l va c a t e d t he c onvi c t i ons
a n d r e m a n d e d f

o r a n e w tr ia l. I

d
. T he G ov er nm entpet i t i on ed for r ehea ri ng en banc. T h is c o u r t v a c a te d th e p a n e l o p in io n a n d g r a n te d th e p e titio n f o r r e h e a r in g e n b a n c toDef endants also contend that the district cour t erre d by : (1) deny

ing the ir motions for 3 mistrial based on a Jencks / Brady violation; (2) barring Yates from cross-e x amining Pusztai about a re latio ns hip wi th a

no ther w oma

n; a nd (3 ) d e nyingPus zta i’ s mo tio n f or pe rs on a l a c cess to computer disks related to his defense. We f ind no merit in these conte ntions. See11th Cir. Rul e 36- 1. D e f

e n d ants f urth e r argu e th at t

h e d is tric t c o urt er

r e d in th e im p o s itio no f

th e ir s e nten c e s . We ne e d n ot add

re ss t his argument be c a

us e we se t a sid e De fend ants ’ c onvic tio ns and orde r a ne w tri a l. Fin a lly , in

h e r e nb an c b rie f

, Y ate s c o nten d s th at admi s s io no f th e v id e o c o nfer ence te sti mony vio late d F e de ral Ru leof

Crimi nal Proc e dure26 be c a us e the te sti mony wa s n ot “ take n in open cour t.” Fe d. R. Crim. P . 26. Be cause this argument was not made in her initial appellate brie f, it is waived. Un ited S

tates v . D ock

e ry , 401 F.3d 1261, 1262- 63 (11th Cir. 2005). We ex p ress no opinion as to whether Rule 26 w as violated. 6 c o n s id e rth is im p o r ta n t c o n s titu tio n a l q u e s tio n . U ni t ed St at es v. Y

at es , 404 F
. 3d 1291 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ).

I I . I SSU ES O N A PPEA L A N D STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW W e d is c u s s o n ly tw o o f th e is s u e s P u s z ta i a n d Y a te s p r e s e n t o n a p p e a l. F ir s t, 3 D ef endant s c on t end that thei r S i xt h A m endm ent ri gh t s t o c on fr on t at i on w er e vi ol at ed b y a d m is s io n o f

th is te s tim o n y ta k e n f

r o m w itn e s s e s w h o w e r e p h y s ic a lly p r e s e n t in A u stral i a w h i l e D efen d an t s w ere i n M o n t g o m ery, A l ab am a. In su p p o rto f th is cont ent i on , t hey m ai nt ai n t hat thei r ri gh t s t o con fr on tthe w i tness es fa ce -t o-fa ce w er e vi ol a t e d a nd t ha tt he w i tne s s e s w e r e notgi ve n a pr ope ro at h. T he a dm i s s i on of te s tim o n y b y tw o - w a y v id e o c o n f e r e n c e p r e s e n t s a m ix e d q u e s tio n o f la w a n d f

a c t; th e r e f o r e , w e r e v ie w d e n o v o D e f e n d a n ts ’ c la im th a t th e irS ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts
w e r e v io la te d
. See L illy v . V ir g in ia , 52 7 U
. S
. 11 6, 13 7, 11 9 S
. C t . 18 87 , 19 00 (199 9).7

T he se cond i ss ue w e di sc uss i s D ef endant s’ cont ent i on thatthe di stri ctcourt
e r r e d i n de ny i ng the i rm ot i ons f orj udgm e ntof

a c qui t t a l on t he gr ound tha tt he
e vi de nc e w a s i ns uf

f i c i e ntt o s uppor t the i r c onvi c t i ons . W e r e vi e w thi s rul i ng de novo. U ni t e d Stat e s v . P is t one , 17 7 F
. 3d 95 7, 95 8 (11 th C i r. 19 99 ). I I I . DI S CUS S I ON A
. T h e C o n fro n t at i o n C l au se D e f e nda nt s a r gue tha ta dm i s s i on o f t h e vi de o- c onf e r e nc e d t e s t i m ony w a s not
nece ss ar y t o furt her an i m po rt ant pu bl i c pol i cy and t hu s vi ol at ed t he rul e a nn ou nced i n C r a ig , 4 9 7 U .S . 8 3 6 , 1 1 0 S . C t. 3 1 5 7
. T h e S ix th A m e n d m e n t p r o v id e s : “I n a ll c r im in a l p r o s e c u tio n s , th e a c c u s e d s h a ll
e n jo y th e r ig h t . . . to b e c o n f r o n te d w it h t h e w itn e s s e s a g a in s t h im .” U .S . C o n s t.
a m e nd. V I
. T hi s c l a us e , know n a s t he C onf r ont a t i on C l a us e, “ g u arant e e s the d e f e n d a n t a f

a c e - to - f a c e m e e tin g w ith w itn e s s e s a p p e a r in g b e f o r e th e tr ie ro f

f a c t.” Co y v . I o wa , 487 U
. S
. 1012, 1016, 108 S
. C t . 2798, 2801 ( 1988)
. T hi s r i gh t t o a ph ys i ca l fa ce -t o-fa ce m ee t i ng , ho w ever , i s notabsol ut e a nd m ay be com p ro m i se d
u n d er l i m i t ed ci rc um st ance s w here “ consi dera t i on s of pub l i c pol i cy and n ec es si t i es
o f th e c a s e ” s o d ic ta te . C ra ig , 4 9 7 U
. S
. a t 8 4 8 , 1 1 0 S . C t. a t 3 1 6 5 . A t is s u e in th is appeal i s w het her the di stri ctcourt ’ s f i nd i ng s d em on stra t e t hat deni al of ph ys i ca l fa ce to - f a c e c o n f r o n ta tio n w a s n e c e s s a r y to f u r th e ra n im p o r ta n t p u b lic p o lic y .8

I n C r a ig , t he S upr e m e C our tuphe l d, ove ra de f e ndan t ’ s S i xth A m e ndm e nt ch al l en g e, a M aryl an d ru l e o f cri m i n al p ro ced u re t h atal l o w ed ch i l d v i ct i m s o f ab u se t o t e s t i f y b y o n e - w a y c l o s e d c i r c u i t t e l e v i s i o n f r o m o u t s i d e th e c o u r tr o o m. 4 9 7 U
. S.
a t858, 110 S
. C t . a t 3170. T he de f e nda nt c oul d s e e the t e s t i f y i ng c hi l d w i tne s s on a
v id e o m o n ito r , b u t th e c h ild w itn e s s c o u ld n o t s e e th e d e f e n d a n t. I d. a t841- 842, 110 S . C t. a t 3 1 6 1 . T h e d e f e n d a n t c o n te n d e d th a t t h i s p r o c e d u r e v io la te d h is S ix th A m endm entri gh tt o con fr on t at i on b ec au se he w as deni ed a physi ca l fa ce -t o-fa ce
e n c o u n te rw ith th e w itn e s s . I d. at84 2, 11 0 S
. C t . at31 61 -62. T he S u p re m e C ou rt approv ed M ar yl and’ s rul e, st at i ng : “ tho ug h w e r ea ff i rm the i m po rt ance of fa ce -t o-fa ce
c onf r ont a t i on w i th w i tne s s e s a ppe a r i ng a t tr i a l , w e c a nnot s a y tha t s uc h c onf r ont a t i on is a n in d is p e n s a b le e le m e n t o f th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t’s g u a r a n te e o f th e r ig h t to confront on e’ s a cc user s. ” I d. at 84 9-85 0, 11 0 S
. C t . at31 65 -66. T he C ou rthel d t hat “[ t]h e C o n f

r o n ta tio n C la u s e r e f

le c ts a p r e f

e r e n c e f o rf a c e - to - f a c e c o n f r o n ta tio n a t tr ia l,
a pr e f e r e nc e t ha tm us toc c a s i ona l l y gi ve w a y t o c ons i de r a t i ons o f publ i c pol i c y a nd the neces si t i es o f th e cas e. ” I d
. at 8 4 9 , 1 1 0 S . C t. at 3 1 6 5 . T h e C o u rt ex p lain ed , “ a d e f e n d a n t’s r ig h t to c o n f

r o n t a c c u s a to r y w itn e s s e s m a y b e s a tis f ie d a b s e n t a p h y s ic a l, fa ce -t o-fa ce confront at i on at tri al on l y w here deni al of such confront at i on i s nec es sa ry t o fu rt he ra n i m por t a ntpubl i c pol i c y a nd onl y w he r e the r e l i a bi l i ty of the t e s t i m ony i s otherw i se as sure d. ” I d. a t 8 5 0 , 1 1 0 S . C t. a t 3 1 6 6
.9

T he G ov er nm ent offe rs tw o argum ent s f or w hy w e s ho ul d n otappl y the C r a ig
ru le in th is c a s e . F ir s t, it m a in ta in s th a t C r a ig s houl d nota ppl y be c a us e the t e s t i m ony i n t his ca se w as pres ent ed by t w o-w ay vi deo con fe re nce r ather than o ne-w ay vi deo
c onf e r e nc e a s i n C r a ig . S e c ond, i ta s sert s t h at tw o- w a y vi de o c onf e r e nc e t e s t i m ony i s s up er i or t o t es t i m on y t aken by depo si t i on un der F eder al R ul e of C ri m i nal P roce du re 15 i n pr ot ect i n g t h e c onf r ont a t i on r i ght s of

de f e nda nt s ; the r e f

or e , i ts houl d be
a d m is s ib le w h e n e v e r R u le 1 5 d e p o s itio n te s tim o n y w o u ld b e . W e d is a g r e e w ith b o th
a r g u m e n ts . T he G ove r nm e ntr e l i e s on U n ite d S ta te s v . G ig a n te , 16 6 F
. 3d 75 (2d C i r. 19 99 ),
a c a s e in w h ic h th e S e c o n d C ir c u it a p p r o v e d th e u s e o f t w o - w a y , c lo s e d c ir c u it t e l e vi s i on t o pr e s e ntt he t e s t i m ony of a w i tne s s f r om a n undi s c l os e d l oc a t i on out s i de the court room . T he G ig a n te courtdecl i ned t o ap p ly the C r a igs t a nda r d, r e a s oni ng tha t , be c a us e the S upr e m e C our t c r a f t e d i t s tw o- pa r t“ s t a nda r d t o c ons tr a i n t he us e of
one - w a y c l os e d- c i r c ui tt e l e vi s i on, w hereby t he w i tne s s c oul d notpos s i bl y vi e w the defe nd ant. . . , i tis n o t n ec es sa ry to enforc e the C r a igst andard i n t hi s c as e. ” I d. at 81. W e r ej ec tthi s r ea soni ng . T he G ig a n te tr i a l c our t s ho u l d h av e appl i e d C r a ig . In fa ct , i tdi d h ol d t he re qu i re d ev ident i ar y hea ri ng , t oo k evi dence fr om m edi ca l
e xpe r t s , a nd fo u n d t h atboth l i ve w i tne s s t e s t i m ony a ttr i a l a nd a R ul e 15 de pos i t i on10

w er e i napp ropri at e i n t he t ri al of an acc used m o b st erchar ged w i th, am on g o t her thi ng s, conspi ra cy t o m u rd er b ec au se t he w i tness : (1) w as a f orm erm ob st er part i ci pat i ng i n t he F eder al W i tness P rot ect i on P rogram , (2) w as atan un di sc l osed l o c a t i on, a nd ( 3) w a s i n the f i na l s t a ge s of

i nope r a bl e , f

a t a l c a nc e r . I n a ddi t i on, the di stri ctcourtfoun d t hatthe defendantw as un abl e t o t ra v el d u e to h is ow n m edi ca l p r o b le m s . I

d
. a t80 , 81
. Thus , i f

t he di s tr i c tc ou r tha d app l i e d the C r a ig t e s t , its
n e c e s s ity s ta n d a r d lik e ly w o u ld h a v e b e e n s a tis f ie d ; to k e e p th e w itn e s s s a f e a n d to p reserv e t h e h eal th o f b o th t h e w i tn ess a n d th e d efen d an t , i tw as n ecessary to d ev i se
a m e thod o f t est i m o n y ot he rtha n l i ve , i n- c our tt e s t i m ony a nd ot he rt ha n a R ul e 15 d e p o s itio n . O n r e vi e w , t he S e c ond C i r c ui ta c know l e dge d t ha t , “ [ t ] he r e m ay w el l be i nt angi bl e el em ent s of the ordeal of t es t i fy i ng i n a court room thatar e r educed or even el i m i nat ed by re m ot e t es t i m on y. ” I d
. a t 81. T he r e f

or e , “ the us e of r e m ot e, c l os e dci rc ui t t el evi si on t es t i m on y m ust be ca re ful l y c i rc um sc ri bed. ” I d. a t80. I nde e d, t he S ec on d C i rc ui t hel d that G i gant e’ s confront at i on ri gh t s had been adequat el y prot ec t ed by the di s tr i c tc our tt hr ough i t s pr oc e dur e of hol di ng a n e vi de nt i ary h e a r i ng a nd
m a ki ng s pe c i f

i c f a c tual f i ndi ngs r e ga r di ng the e xc e pt i ona l c i r c um s t a nc e s t ha tm a de it in a p p r o p r ia te f

o r th e w itn e s s to a p p e a r in th e s a m e p la c e a s th e d e f e n d a n t. I d
. a t79- 80, 81.11

O u rc ir c u it p r e c e d e n t a c k n o w le d g e s th a t C r a igs uppl i es t h e pr ope rt e s tf or
a d m is s ib ility o f tw o - w a y v id e o c o n f e r e n c e te s tim o n y . S e e H a r r e ll v . B u tte r w o r th , 251 F .3 d 9 2 6 , 9 3 0 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ) ( o n h ab ea s r ev iew , h o ld in g F lo rid a S u p re m e C o u rt’s d e c is io n th a t C r a igt e s tw a s s a t i s f i e d s o a s t o a l l ow tw o- w a y vi de o t e s t i m ony w a s not cont ra ry t o, no r an obj ec t i vel y u nrea sonabl e app l i ca t i on of, fe dera l l aw as det er m i ned b y th e S u p r e m e C o u r t) . W e a r e n o t a lo n e . F o u ro th e rc ir c u its a g r e e . T h e E ig h th C i rc ui thas e xp l i ci t l y r ej ec t ed t he ar gu m entthatt he C r a igte s t d o e s n o t a p p ly to te s tim o n y p r e s e n te d m y m e a n s o f t w o - w a y v id e o c o n f e r e n c in g . U

ni t ed St at es v. B or de aux , 4 0 0 F
. 3 d 5 4 8 , 5 5 4
- 5 5 ( 8 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( d e c l i n i n g t o f o l l o w U ni t ed St at es v. G ig a n te , 16 6 F
. 3d 75 (2d C i r. 19 99 ) and fi nd i ng that“ ‘ confront at i on ’ vi a a tw o-w ay cl osed ci rc u it tel evi si on i s notconst i tut i on al l y e qu i val entt o a fa ce -t o-fa ce
c onf r ont at i o n. ” )
. I n a ddi t i on, the S i xth, N i nth, a nd T e nth C i r c ui t s ha ve a ppl i e d the C r a igrul e t o t e s tt he a dm i s s i bi l i ty of tw o- w a y vi de o t est i m o n y a ttr i a l
. I nde e d, f or
m ore than a decade, ci rc ui tcourt s h av e re co g ni ze d t hatt o al l ow prosec ut ori al pre s e nt a t i on of

c hi l d w i tne s s t e s t i mony vi a t w o- w a y c l os e d- c i r c ui tt e l e vi s i on un de r the C hi l d V i c t i m s’ and C hi l d W i tne s s e s ’ R i ght s S t a tut e , 18 U
. S
. C
. § 3509, t he find i ng s of the t ri al courtm ustsa t i sf y the C r a ig t e s t i n o r d e r t o s a t i s f y t he C o n f r o n ta tio n C la u s e . Se e , e . g. , U ni t e d Sta t es v. T

ur ni ng B e ar , 357 F
. 3d 730, 737 ( 8th C i r . 2004) ; U

n ite d S ta te s v . Mo s e s , 1 3 7 F .3 d 8 9 4 , 8 9 7
- 9 8 ( 6 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ; U ni t edNotably , both dissenting o p i n i ons argue (but the G overnme nt does not) that the proper 4 standard to be applied is that stated in Crawf ord v. W ashington , 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. C t. 1354 (2004), the most recent Sup re m e C o urt ca se g overningthe admissibility of out-of- court testimonial state me nts . N o d ou

bt t heGo ve rnme nt p a sse s o n th is argument be c a us e it re c ognize s th at Cra wfo rd applies only

to testimoni al statements madeprior to trial, and thelive two-wa y video testimony

at issue in this case wa s prese nted at trial. The dissenter s contend that the fac t that a witness is leg ally unavailablenece ssarily

means that any testimony

g iven by that witness, by

any m ean s , is hearsa

y testimony

subject only

to the requir em en t s of Cra wfo rd – unavaila

bil ity and an o pp or tun ity to c ro ss- e xami ne . In a dditi on to i ts depa rt ure from l on g sta

ndingpre c e de nt, thi s r e a so nin ga ssume s a wa y thec on sti tution a l is su e in t his case– whether theconfrontation that occur red is constitutionally

sufficie nt. Cra wfo rd

does not answe r this question. 12 S ta te s v . W

e e kle y , 1 3 0 F .3 d 7 4 7 ( 6 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ; U n i t ed S ta t es v. R o u se , 111 F
. 3d 561, 5 6 8 ( 8 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ; U ni t e d Stat e s v . Q u i n t ero , 2 1 F
. 3d 88 5, 89 2 (9t h C i r. 19 94 ); U n ite d S ta te s v . C a r r ie r, 9 F .3 d 8 6 7 ( 1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) ; U ni t ed S ta te s v . G a r c ia , 7 F
. 3d 8 8 5 , 8 8 7
- 8 8 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. Farl ey , 99 2 F
. 2d 11 22 , 11 25 (10t h C i r. 1 9 9 3 ). T h e S eco n d C i rcu i tst a n d s al o n e i n i t s refu sal t o ap p l y C r a ig . See G ig a n te , 166 F
. 3d 75. 4 B e c a us e D e f

e nda nt s w e r e de ni e d a phy s i c a l f a c e - t o- f a c e c onf r ont a t i on w i t h t he
w i tne s s e s a ga i ns t the m a t tr i a l , w e mus t a s k w he the r the r e qu i r e me nt s of t he C r a ig
rul e w e r e s a t i s f

i e d, j us t i f

y i ng a n e xc e pt i on t o the phy s i c a l f a c e - t o- f a c e c onf r ont a t i on
re qu i re m entof t he S i xt h A m endm ent . A s i nd i ca t ed ea rl i er , un der C r a ig , s uch te s tim o n y m a y b e o f

f e r e d “o n ly w h e r e d e n ia l o f s u c h c o n f

r o n ta tio n is n e c e s s a r y to f u r th e r a n i m p o r ta n t p u b lic p o lic y a n d o n ly w h e r e th e r e lia b ility o f th e te s tim o n y is
o th e r w is e a s s u r e d .” 4 9 7 U .S . a t 8 5 0 , 1 1 0 S . C t. a t 3 1 6 6
.The district cour t found that the Gover

nment had demonstrated the existence of e x ceptional 5 circ umstances suff

icient to justify

the takingof a Rule 15 depos i t i o n . (R
. 3 -3 14 at 26.) The Gover nment co n t en d s , there fore , that it would have been proper to have read into the trial rec ord deposition testimony

taken pur suant to Ru l e 15. And, it argues– without citation other than Gi ga nte – th at two- wa

y vid e o co nf

e renc e te sti mony is co ns tit uti on a lly su

pe ri or to admi ssi on

of Rul e 15 depo sition

te sti mony

at tria l be c a

us e it allo ws de fend ants and wi tne sse s to see e a c h o ther ( a lbe it through a television monitor), provides f or cross-examination at the time of trial, and g ives the jury theop po rt

un ity to s e e wi tne sse s ins te a d of jus t he a ri ng the ir wo rd s re a d f

ro m a depo sition

tr ans c ript. Thus , the Go ve rnme nt co nc lud e s, a dmi ssi on of tw o- wa y vid e o c on ferenc e te sti mony is s uf fi c ie ntly protec tive of defendants’ Six th Amendment rights to confrontation whe never deposition testimony taken pur suant to Rule 15 would be admitted. 13 W e r e je c t th e G o v e r n m e n t’s a r g u m e n t th a t C r a ig doe s not a ppl y be c a us e t w ow ay v i d eo co n feren ce t est i m o n y i s n ecessaril y m o re p ro t ectiv e o f d efen d an t s’
co n fro n t at i o n ri g h t s th an th e m et h o d o f ad m i t t i n g t est i m o n y o f an u n av ai l ab l e w i t n ess p r e s c r ib e d b y R u le 1 5
. F ir s t, th e G o v e r n m e n t’s a r g u m e n t ig n o r e s th e f a c t th a t R u le 5 15 g iv es th e def

endantt he op po rtun i ty t o b e pre se ntatthe depo si t i on and t hu s a n oppor tuni t y f

or phy s i c a l f

a c e - t o- f a c e c onf r ont a t i on. S e c ond, the G ove r nm e nt concedes thatthe procedure used i n t hi s c as e i s notaut ho ri zed b y the F eder al R ul es of C r i m i na l P r oc e dur e . R a the r , t he G ove r nm e nta r gue s , a dm i s s i on of vi de o t e s t i m ony i s w i thi n t he i nh er entpo w er s of tri al court s. B ut hi st ory dem on stra t es ot herw i se . In 20 02 , the A dv i sory C om m i t t ee on the C ri m i nal R ul es sugg es t ed a r evi si on t o F eder al R ul e of C r i m i na l P r oc e dur e 26 tha tw oul d ha ve a l l ow e d t e s t i m ony by m e a ns of t w ow ay v i d eo co n feren ci n g . T h ereafter, th e S u p re m e C o u rttran sm i t t ed t o C o n g ress prop osed am en d m en ts t o t he F eder al R ul es of C ri m i nal P roce du re . T he C ou rt decl i ned t o t ra nsm i t th e p ropo se d revi si on t o R ul e 26 t hatw ou l d h ave a l l ow ed14

t e s t i m ony by tw o- w a y vi de o c onf e r e nc e . J us t i c e S c a l i a f i l e d a s t at em e nte xpl a i ni ng th a t h e s h a r e d “th e m a

jo r ity ’s v ie w th a t th e J u d ic ia l C o n f e r e n c e ’s p r o p o s e d F e d . R u le C r im
. P ro c. 2 6 (b ) i s o f d u b i o u s v al i d i ty u n d er t h e C o n fro n t at i o n C l au se o f t h e S i x th A m endm entt o the U ni t ed S t at es C on st i tut i on . . . . ” O rd er o f th e S u p rem e C o u rt , 207 F .R .D . 8 9 , 9 3 ( 2 0 0 2 )
. H e r e m a r k e d th a t th e p r o p o s e d a m e n d m e n ts w e r e “c o n tr a r y to the rul e e nunc i a t e d i n C r a ig ” i n tha tthe y w oul d not l i m i t the us e of r e m ot e t e s t i m ony to “in s ta n c e s w h e r e th e r e h a s b e e n a ‘c a s e - s p e c if ic f in d in g ’ th a t it is ‘n e c e s s a r y to further a n i m po rt antpu bl i c pol i cy . ’ ” I d. (c i t at i on om i t t ed). R ul e 26 w as no tre vi se d to a llo w s u c h te s tim o n y . T h u s , to a c c e p t th e G o v e r n m e n t’s r e a s o n in g o n th is p o in t, w e w o u ld n e e d to
a c c e pti t s i m pl i c i tc l a i m tha ti tknow s be s thow t o pr ot e c tde f e nda nt s ’ c onf

r ont a t i on
r i ght s . W e do nota c c e pt t h i s cl ai m . T o do s o w oul d r e qui r e t ha tw e di s r e ga r d t he h isto ry o f th e p ro p o se d am en d m en ts to R u le 2 6 . F u rth er , t o ac ce p t th e G o v er n m en t’ s cl ai m , w e w ou l d h ave t o i gn ore the ca re ful l y- cr af t ed prov i si on s of R ul e 15 t hatw er e de s i gne d t o pr ot e c tde f e nda nt s ’ r i ght s t o p h ysi c a l f a c e - t o- f a c e c onf r ont a t i on a nd i nst ea d app rove a p ro ce du re no tcont em pl at ed by t he F eder al R ul es of C ri m i nal P roce du re . Th e s i mp l e t ru th i s t h a tc o n f r o n t a t i o n th r o u g h a v i d e o mo n i t o r i s n o t th e s a me
a s p h y s i c a l f

a c e - t o - f a c e c o n f r o n t a t i o n . As o u r s i s t e r c i r c u i t s h a v e r e c o g n i z e d , th e two15

a r e n o t c o n s titu tio n a lly e q u iv a le n t. Se e , e . g. , U ni t e d Stat e s v . B or de aux , 400 F
. 3d 548, 554- 55 ( 8t h C i r . 2005)
. T he S i xth A m e n d m en t ’ s g u a r a nt e e of the r i ghtt o c onf

r ont
one ’ s a c c us e ri s m os tc e r t a i nl y c om pr om i s e d w he n the c onf r ont a t i on oc c ur s thr ough
a n e l e c tr oni c m e di um . I nde e d, no c our tt ha tha s c ons i de r e d the q u es t i on ha s f ound ot herw i se ; even t he G ig a n te c our ta c know l e dge d tha t , “ the us e o f r e m ot e , c l os e dci rc ui tt elev i si on t es t i m on y m ustbe ca re ful l y c i rc um sc ri bed. ” U ni t ed St at es v. G ig a n te , 1 6 6 F .3 d 7 5 , 8 0 ( 2 d C ir . 1 9 9 9 )
. A s s t at ed ab o v e, w h ere a d efen d an t ’ s ri g h t t o co n fro n t a w i tn ess ag ai n s t h im
w i l l be af

fe ct ed, t he det er m i nat i on of w het her a part icu lar ca se re qu i re s a departure fro m u su al p ro ced u res m u stb e m ad e, b y th e tri al co u rt , o n a case-b y-case b asi s. C r a ig , 49 7 U
. S
. at85 4, 11 0 S
. C t . at31 69
. T he court genera l l y m ust : (1) hol d an evi de nt i a r y he a r i ng a nd ( 2) f i nd : ( a ) t ha tt he de ni a l of ph y s i c a l , f

a c e- t o-fa ce
c onf r ont a t i on a t tr i a l i s ne c e s s a r y t o f ur the ra n i m por t a ntpubl i c pol i c y a nd ( b) tha tthe rel i ab i l i ty o f th e t est i m o n y i s o th erw i se a s s u r e d
. I d
. a t850, 855, 110 S
. C t . a t3166, 3 1 6 9 . T h e f

ir s t p a r t o f

th is te s t r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e tr ia l c o u r t f in d th a t it is e s s e n tia l to de ny t he de f

e nda nthi s r i ghtt o f

a c e - t o- f a c e phy s i c a l c onf

r o n t at i o n i n or de rt o s e r ve th e in te r e s t th e g o v e r n m e n t a s s e r ts . Se e , i d. a t 8 5 5 , 1 1 0 S . C t. a t 3 1 6 9 ( s ta tin g th a t, in order t o separate the w i tness and d ef endant , the prob l em m ustbe t he ph ys i ca lThe De fenda nts also objected at trial to conductingthe video conf erence in the United States 6 Attor ne y ’s of fi c e . Wh il e theDe fend ants havea ba nd on e d th is o bje c tio n o n a pp e a l, w e re ma in concerned w ith the shift of a trial to a United States Attorney ’s offic e. Therei s no evidentiar

y support for the district c ourt’s findingthat the Gover nment’s 7 i nt e r e s ti ne xp e d i t i o u s l y an d j u s t l y r e s o l v i n gth e c a s e c r e at e d a n e c e s s i ty f

o r th e v i d e o t e s t i m o ny. However, the district cour t was critical of the Government’ s delay in identifying theneed f

or the fore ign w itnesses’ testimony
. Seen. 9 inf ra . Thereis some indication that the court wa s concerned that the trial would be delayed if a Rule 15 deposition ne eded to betaken. ( R.3-314 at 26.) In that 16 pres ence of the defe nd ant du ri ng t he w i tness ’ s t es t i m on y, no tsom e ot her probl em that coul d b e r em edi ed by a l es s i nt rusi ve sol ut i on ). In t his ca se , the di stri ctcourtappl i ed t he C r a igt es tt o p er m i tthe A ustra l i an
w i tne s s e s t o t e s t i f

y by t w o- w a y vi de o c onf e r e nc e br oa dc a s ton a t el ev i s i on m oni t or at the tri al conv ened i n the U ni t ed S t at es A t t orney’ s O ff i ce i n M on t go m er y, A l abam a. 6 ( R
. 3- 314. ) H ow e ve r , i t he l d no he a r i ng t o c ons i de re vi de nc e of t he ne c e s s i ty f

ort he vi deo con fe re nce t es t i m on y. R at h er , th e tri al courtal l ow ed t he t w o-w ay vi deo t es t i m on y bas ed on l y on t he G ov er nm ent ’ s as se rt i on s i n i t s m ot i on that the A ustra l i an
w i tn esses w ere u n w i l l i n g t o trav el t o th e U n i t ed S t at es fo r tr ia l, ( I d
. a t2. ) , a nd t he G o v e r n m e n t’s p o s ite d “im p o r ta n t p u b lic p o lic [ ie s ] o f p r o v id in g th e f

a c t- f in d e rw ith
cruci al evi dence, ” (I

d
. a t 19
. ) , “ e xp e di t i ou s l y a nd j us t l y r e s ol vi ng the c as e, ” ( I d
. at 22
. ), and “ ensuri ng t hatfore i gn w i tness es ca n so t es t i fy
. ” (I d
. at20
. ) T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o n s id e r e d s u f f ic ie n t th e G o v e r n m e n t’s s ta te d “im p o r ta n t p u b lic po l i cy of prov i di ng t he fa ct -f i nd erw i th cruci al evi dence, ” (I d
. a t 1 9 ) , a n d “in te r e s t in
e x p e d itio u s ly a n d ju s t l y r e s o lv in g th e c a s e .” (I d. at22
. ) W e a cc eptthe di stri ct 7c irc ums tanc e , allo wi ngthevid e o te sti mony a ide d th e e xpe dient re so lution of thec a seon ly

be c a us e the Gover nment had already

been le ss than diligent in see king a Rule 15 deposition. The district cour

t also noted that “in today ’s world of thein t ern et and increasing g lobalization, m ore and more situations will arise in which witnesses with material knowle dg e are beyo n d th e subpoena pow er of the Court.” (R.3-314 at 22.) Be causethis finding re g ardingthe future of communications was not ca se-spe cific, w e do not consider it. Se eCra ig , 497 U.S. at 855- 56, 110 S. Ct . at 3169 (re quiringcase -spec ific finding s). 17 court ’ s s t at em entthatthe w i tness es w er e nec es sa ry t o t he prosecut i on ’ s c as e on at l e a s ts om e of

t he c ha r ge s , a s the r e c or d s uppor t s the G ove r nm e nt ’ s a s s e r t i on tha tt he t es t i m ony w a s c ruc i a l t o a s uc c e s s f ul pr os e c ut i on of

the D e f e nd a nt s a nd a i ded
e x p e d itio u s r e s o lu tio n o f th e c a s e . T h e G o v e r n m e n t’s in te r e s t in p r e s e n tin g th e f a c tf i nde rw i th c ruc i a l e vi de nc e i s , o f c our s e , a n i m por t a ntpubl i c pol i c y . W e hol d, how e ve r , tha t , unde r the c i r c um s t a nc e s of thi s c a s e ( w hi c h i nc l ude the a va i l a bi l i t y of
a R u le 1 5 d e p o s itio n ) , th e p r o s e c u to r ’s n e e d f o r t h e v id e o c o n f

e r e n c e te s tim o n y to
m ake a ca se and t o e xp edi t i ou sl y re sol ve i t ar e no t the type of pub l i c pol i ci es t hatar e i m po rt antenou gh t o o ut w ei gh t he D ef endant s’ ri gh t s t o confront thei r accuse rs fa ce t o-fa ce . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t m a d e n o c a s e - s p e c if ic f in d in g s o f

f a c t th a t w o u ld s u p p o r t a
c onc l us i on tha t thi s c a s e i s di f f e r e nt f r om a ny othe rc r i m i na l pr os e c ut i on i n w hi c h t he G o v er n m en tw ou l d fi nd i tconv eni entt o p re se ntt es t i m on y by tw o-w ay vi deo
c onf e ren ce. A l l c r i m i na l pr os e c ut i ons i nc l ude a tl e a s ts om e e vi de nc e c ruc i a l t o the G ov er n m en t’ s c as e, and t here i s no d ou btthatm any c ri m i nal ca se s c ou l d b e m oreTh e dis se nters arguetha t th e ma jority a c c ords Rul e 15 qu a si- c on sti tution a l status . Th at is 8 incorre ct. We do not sugg est that Rule 15 is the only way to c omply with theConfrontation Clause. We find only that the availability of a Rule 15 deposition demonstrates that, in this case, it was not ne c e ssa ry to d eprivetheDe fend ants of fa c e -t o- fa c e me e tin g s w iththe ir a c c us e rs . 18 expedi t i ou sl y r es ol ved w er e i tun nece ss ar y f or w i tness es t o app ea r attri al
. If w e w er e t o a ppr ove i nt r oduc t i on of t e s t i m ony i n thi s m a nne r , on t hi s r e c or d, e ve r y pr os e c ut or
w i s hi ng t o pr e s e ntt e s t i m ony f r om a w i tne s s ove r s e a s w oul d a r gue tha tpr ovi di ng
c ru c ia l p r o s e c u tio n e v id e n c e a n d r e s o lv in g th e c a s e e x p e d itio u s ly a r e im p o r ta n t p u b lic p o lic ie s th a t s u p p o r t th e a d m is s io n o f te s tim o n y b y tw o - w a y v id e o c o n f e r e n c e . See,
e. g. , R em ot e T

es t i m ony– A P rose cut or’s P er spec t i ve , 35 U
. M i c h. J
. L
. R e f or m 719 ( 2 0 0 2 )
. C r a igre qu i re s thatfurthera nce of the i m po rt antpu bl i c pol i cy m ake i tnece ss ar y t o d eny the de fe n d an thi s r i gh tt o a ph ys i ca l fa ce -t o-fa ce confront at i on . 49 7 U
. S
. at 85 2, 11 0 S
. C t . at31 67
. In th is ca se , there si m pl y i s no n ec es si ty of the t ype C r a ig
c o n te m p la te s . W h e n o n e c o n s id e r s th a t R u le 1 5 ( w h ic h p r o v id e s f o rd e p o s itio n s in
c r i mi n a l c a s e s ) s u p p l i e d a n a l t e r na t i ve , thi s l a c k of ne c e s s i ty i s s tr i ki ngl y a ppa r e nt . 8 T h e v ersi o n o f R u l e 1 5 i n effect att h e t i m e o f D efen d an t s’ t ri al st at es: W h e n e v e r , d u e to e x c e p tio n a l c ir c u m s t a n c e s o f th e c a s e it i s i n t he i nt er es t o f just i ce thatthe t es t i m on y of a pr os pe c t i ve w i tne s s o f a p a r ty be t a ke n a nd pr e s e r ve d f or us e a tt r i a l , t he c our tm a y upon m ot i on o f s uc h pa r ty a nd not i c e t o t he pa r t i e s or de rt e s t i m ony of s uc h w i tn e s s be ta k e n b y d e p o s itio n . . . .The c urre nt version of Rule 15 continues t o guara ntee the defe ndant, whethe r in custody or 9 not, an opportunity to be present at the deposit ion. Fe d. R. Crim. P. 15(c)
. The curre nt rule is more protec tive of i ndigent defendants, howeve r. In a ca se like this, wherethe deposition would be take n at the re quest of the g overnme nt, the current rule require s the g overnme nt to pay the expenses of such a de fenda

nt’s attendanc e. F ed. R. Crim. P. 15(d). 19 F e d. R
. C r i m . P
. 15( a ) ( 2002)
. T he rul e c ont i nue s , gua r a nt e e i ng t he de f e nda nt ’ s r i ght t o phy s i c a l f

a c e - t o- f a c e c onf r ont a t i on by s pe c i f

i c a l l y pr ovi di ng f

orhi s pr e s e nc e a tthe d e p o s itio n . F e d . R
. C r i m . P
. 1 5 ( b ) ( 2 0 0 2 ) ; s e e a ls o , D o n v . N ix , 886 F
. 2d 203, 206 ( 8th C i r. 1 9 8 9) ( hol di ng t ha tthe S i xth A m e ndm e ntgua r a nt e e s a c r i m i na l de f e nda nt th e o p p o rtu n i ty t o b e p resen tatth e d ep o si t i o n o f an accu ser) ; U n it ed St at es v. B e n fie ld , 5 9 3 F .2 d 8 1 5 , 8 2 1 ( 8 th C ir . 1 9 7 9 ) ( s a m e ) ; I n r e L et t ers of

R e que s t f r om Supr e m e C our t

of H ong Kong , 82 1 F. Supp
. 20 4, 20 9 ( S. D
. N
. Y
. 19 93 ) ( s t a t i ng t hat R u l e 1 5 g u aran t ees d efen d an t s a ri g h t t o b e p resen t at d ep o si t i o n so as t o p rev en tu se
o f d e p o si t i o n t est i m o n y at tri al fro m v i o l at i n g S i x th A m en d m en t ri g h tto
c o n f r o n ta tio n )
. E ve n a defen d an ti n c us t ody “ s ha l l ” be pr oduc e d f orthe de pos i t i on,
u n l e s s t h e d e f

e n d a n tw a i v e s th e r i g h tt o b e p r e s e n ti n w r i t i n g o ri s d i s ru p t i v e . Fe d
. R. C ri m . P
. 1 5 (b ) (2 0 0 2 )
. I n d e ed , th e d efen d an t ’ s p resen ce atth e d ep o si t i o n i s so i m po rt antt hat , i f he c anno taf ford t o at t en d , the go vernm entm ay be ordered t o p ay th e c o s t s o f

t r a v e l a n d s u b s i s t e n c e e xpe ns e s f o rh i m a n d h i s a t t o r n e y . Fe d
. R. Cr i m. P
. 15 (c ) ( 20 02 ). 920

T h e G o v e r n m e n t a r g u e s th a t d e p o s itio n s la te rr e a d in to th e r e c o r d a t t r i a l, in f a c t, d o o c c u rw ith o u t th e d e f e n d a n t h a v in g b e e n p r e s e n t. W h ile th a t m a y b e s o , it is
o n ly the r ar e, exce pt i on al ca se . R ul e 15, prop er l y ut i l i ze d, prot ec t s a defe nd ant’ s
c onf r ont a t i on r i ght s by a f

f or di ng the d efen d a nta n oppor tuni ty t o be pr e s e nta tt he d e p o s itio n . U

ni t e d Stat e s v . D r agoul , 1 F
. 3d 1546, 1556 ( 11t h C i r . 1993)
. I ti s t he
ex trao rd in ar y c ircu m stan ce w h er e d ep o siti o n testim o n y is tak en d es p it e a d ef en d an t’ s
w a n t o f o p p o r tu n ity to b e p r e s e n t. S e e , e .g ., U n ite d S ta te s v . Sa lim , 855 F
. 2d 944, 949 (2d C i r. 19 88 ) ( fi nd i ng t hatdepo si t i on m ay be t aken, despi t e fore i gn coun try ’ s r ef usal t o al l ow defe nd antt o b e pre se ntbu tdefe rr i ng qu es t i on of w het her a dm i ss i on of such a deposi t i on w ou l d v i ol at e the C on fr on t at io n C l ause ). E ven i n t ho se exce pt i on al
c a s e s , c o u r ts h a v e s a id th a t th e g o v e r n m e n t m u s t h a v e m a d e d i l i g e n t a n d r e a s o n a b le
e f f o r ts to p r o d u c e th e d e f

e n d a n t a t th e ta k in g o f

th e d e p o s itio n . I

d. a t 9 5 0
- 5 1 ; see a l

so U n it edSt at es v. McKee ve , 1 3 1 F .3 d 1 , 8 ( 1 s t C ir . 1 9 9 7 )
. O the rc i r c ui t s ha ve
r e c o g n iz e d th a t f

a ilu r e to m a k e s u c h e f

f o r ts , f o llo w e d b y u s e o f

th e d e p o s itio n a t tr ia l,
v io la te s th e d e f

e n d a n t’s c o n f

r o n ta tio n r ig h ts . S e e , e . g . , Ch r is t i a n v . Rhode , 4 1 F
. 3d 46 1, 46 5-46 7 (9t h C i r. 19 94 ). O n t hi s r ec ord, there i s no evi dent i ar y s up po rtfor a ca se -s peci fi c f i nd i ng t hat the w i tne s s e s a nd D e f

e nda nt s c oul d notbe pl a c e d i n the s a m e r oom f ort he t a ki ng of pr e - tr i a l de pos i t i on t e s t i m ony pur s ua ntt o R ul e 15. O t h er tha n s t a t i ng tha tt heOther c ourts have ide ntified leg itimate rea sons why phy sical fa ce- to-fac e conf rontation 10 cannot beacc ommodat ed
. T h i s is not a caselike Cra ig wh e re , in

orde r t o p re se rv e thede lic ate psyche of the child who wa s the alleg ed victim of abuse , it wa s nece ssary to de vise a proc edureby which the c hild testified outside the prese nce of the alleg ed abuser. Ne ither is it like Gi ga nte , where, in order to protect the health and safe ty of the for mer mobster w itness, it was nece ssary to use such a proc edureto separate him f rom the alleg ed mob boss defendant. In this case, the G overnme nt’s int e re st in “pro vi di ngthefa c t- fi nd e r w ithc ru c ia l e vid e nc e ” sim ply did no t makeit n e c e ssa

ry to sepa ratetheAu stra lia

n w itn e ss f

ro m th e De fend ant ac c us e d o f i lle g a l sale s o f p re scr ip ti on dr ug s. Despite findingthat the Gover nment knew of the Australian witnesses and the ir rele vance 11 fo r o v e r tw o ye ar s b e f

o r e it mad e it s p r e - trial mo ti o n , th at th e G o v e r nment h a d s e riously

delayed in m akin g its re qu e st t o a dmi t vi de o c on ferenc e te sti mony by theAu stra lia

n w itn e sse s, and

that th is serious delay “would li kely ty pify the kind of dela

y war rantingthe denial of

a Rule 15 deposition,” (R .3 -3 14 at 27 .) , th e dis tric t c ourt fo un d th at th e del ay

c re ate d “ no re a l pre

judic e ” to D e fend ants . ( Id. at 9-10.) We disagree . 21 w i tne s s e s w oul d not c om e t o t he U ni t e d S t a t e s , the tr i a l c our tga ve no r e a s on w hy t he
w i tness es and D ef

endant s co u l d n otal l be i n t he sa m e r oo m for a pre- t ri al de pos i t i on. 10 T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notf i nd t ha tthe r e w a s an yt h i n g t o pr e ve ntt he D e f e n d a n ts f r o m tr a v e lin g to A u s tr a lia to b e p r e s e n t f o ra R u le 1 5 d e p o s itio n . I n f a c t, it f o u n d th a t th e o n ly r e a s o n a R u le 1 5 d e p o s itio n m a y n o t h a v e b e e n a n a p p r o p r ia te
a lte r n a tiv e to th e v id e o c o n f e r e n c e w a s th a t th e G o v e r n m e n t h a d w a ite d to o lo n g to
r e q u e s t s u c h a d e p o s itio n . ( R .3
- 3 1 4 a t 2 7 .) 11 M or e ove r , i n thi s c a s e , t he G ove r nm e ntne ve r r e que s t e d a R ul e 15 de pos i t i on. T he G ov er nm enthas never mai nt ai ned t hatany s peci al ci rc um st ance cr ea t ed an i na bi l i ty t o t a ke s uc h a de pos i t i o n o r tha ti tw oul d ha ve be e n i m pos s i bl e t o a l l ow D e f e nd an t s t o a t t e nd s uc h a de pos i t i on. I ns t e a d, i tha s a r gue d onl y tha tt e s t i m ony pr e s e nt e d by t w o- w a y vi de o c onf e r e nc e i s s upe r i ort o t e s t i m ony t a ke n by R u l e 1522

de pos i t i on w i th w i tne s s a nd defen d an t i n the s a m e r oom . W hi l e tha tm i ghtbe t he
o p in io n o f

s o m e , it w a s n o t th e o p in io n o f D e f e n d a n ts . S h o u ld th e y h a v e w is h e d to
w a i ve the i rr i ght s t o c onf r ont a t i on, the y w e r e a bl e t o do s o. I n the a bs e nc e of s uc h a
w a i ve rorc a s e - s pe c i f

i c f i ndi ngs of

e xc e pt i ona l c i r c um s t a nc e s c rea t i ng the ty pe of
n ecessi ty C r a igc o n te m p la te s , h o w e v e r , w itn e s s e s a n d c r im in a l d e f e n d a n ts s h o u ld
m eetface-to-face. T h e S i x th A m en d m en tso req u i res.

“ T h e ri g h tg u aran t ee d b y th e C o n fro n t at i o n C l au se i n cl u d es n o to n l y a ‘P e r s o n a l e x a m in a tio n ,’ b u t a ls o ‘( 1 ) in s u r e s th a t th e w itn e s s w ill g iv e h is s ta te m e n ts unde roa th– t hus i m pr e s s i ng hi m w i th the s e r i ous ne s s o f t h e m at t e ra nd gua r di ng
a g a in s t th e lie b y th e p o s s i b i l i ty o f a p e n a lty f

o rp e r ju r y ; ( 2 ) f

o r c e s th e w itn e s s to subm i t t o cr oss- exam i nat i on , the ‘ grea t es t l egal engi ne everi nv ent ed for the di sc ov er y of truth’ ; [ a nd] ( 3) pe r m i t s the j ur y tha t i s t o de c i de the de f e nda nt ' s f

a t e t o obs e r ve t he d e m e a n o ro f

th e w itn e s s in m a k in g h is s ta te m e n t, th u s a id in g th e ju r y in a s s e s s in g h is
cr edi bi l i ty. ” C r a ig, 49 7 U
. S
. at84 5- 8 4 6 , 1 1 0 S
. C t . at31 63 (c i t at i on s om i t t ed). D e f e nda nt s c ont e nd tha tthe oat h sw o rn by the A us tr a l i a n w i tne s s e s w a s not
m e a ni ngf

ul , e i the rbe c a us e i tw a s i nva l i d ( a s i t w a s not a dm i ni s t e r e d i n A us tr a l i a , by
s om e one a ut hor i z e d by fed eral l aw t o gi ve a n oa th out s i de of t he U ni t e d S t a t e s ) or b ecau se i t d i d n o t su b

j ect th e w i tn esses t o a p l au si b l e th reat o f p ro secu t i o n fo r p erj u ry. W e n eed n o tad d ress t h ese co n t en t i o n s. B ecau se w e fi n d th atd en i a l o f D efen d an t s’Th e reis a lso a qu e sti on wh e ther the De fend ants tim e ly c halle ng e d th e oath o r w a ive d th e ir 12 argument that it was invalid. We need not address that question either. Yates a rgues in her briefs to the en ba nc pane l that we s hould ignore evide nce admitted 13 in violation of the Confrontation Clause i n deter mining the sufficie ncy of the evidence upon which she wa s convicted. She did not makethis argument in her initial appellatebrief. There fore , she has waived it. Un ited S

tates v . D ock

e ry , 401 F.3d 1261, 1262-63 (11th Cir. 2005). We apply the usual rule a nd consider all the evidenceadmitted at trial, includingthe video conf erence te stimony
. 23 S i xt h A m endm entri gh t s t o fac e- t o-fa ce confront at i on w as no tnece ss ar y t o furt her a n i mpor t a ntpu bl i c po l i c y i n thi s c a s e , w e pr oc e e d n o f ur the rw i th t he C r a ig a n al ysi s. W e the r e f

or e do notc ons i de rt he m e a ni ngf ul ne s s of the oa th a s a dm i ni s t e r e d. 12 B
. M ot i on s f

or Judg m entof A cqui t t al F in a lly , w e tu r n to D e f e n d a n t s ’ c o n te n tio n s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d in de ny i ng the i r m ot i ons f or j udgm e nt s of a c qui t t a l ba s e d on the i r a s s e r t i ons th at t he
e vi de nc e a dm i t t e d a t tr i a l w a s i ns uf f i c i e nt t o s uppor t the i r c onvi c t i ons . P us z t a i m a de
no ar g u m en t in hi s i ni t i al appel l at e bri ef re gardi ng the i nsuffi ci ency of t he evi dence up on w hi ch he w as conv i ct ed; thu s, w e d o no t consi der the suff i ci ency of t he evi dence
a g a in s t h im . H a v in g r e v ie w e d th e e v id e n c e a d m itte d a t tr ia l, w e f in d it s u f f ic ie n t to supp ortY at es ’ s c on victio n s. O ur concl usi on i s but tre ss ed by t he fa ctthatY at es t est i fi ed att ri al , an d t h e j u ry o b v i o u sl y rej ect ed h er t est i m o n y. See U ni t ed St at es 13
v . Br o wn , 5 3 F .3 d 3 1 2 , 3 1 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) ( “[ A ] s ta te m e n t b y a d e f e n d a n t, if d isb eliev ed b y th e ju ry , m ay b e c o n sid er ed as su b stan ti v e e v id en ce o f th e d ef en d an t’ s g u ilt.” )
.24

T hu s, re tri al of D ef

endant s i s n ot barr ed beca use w e revers e f or t ri al er ror r ather th a n o n in s u f

f ic ie n c y o f

th e e v id e n c e g r o u n d s . S ee U n i t ed S ta t es v . S c o tt , 4 3 7 U
. S. 82, 90- 91, 98 S
. C t . 2187, 2193- 94 ( 1978) (“ T he s uc c e s s f ul a ppe a l of

a j udgm e ntof
c onvi c t i on, on a ny gr ound ot he rt ha n the i ns uf f i c i e nc y of

the e vi de nc e t o s uppor tt he verdi ct , po se s no b art o furt her prose cut i on on the sa m e c harge. ”)
. I V . CONCL US I ON Be c a u s e t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f l i v e , tw o - w a y v i d e o c o n f e r e n c e t e s t i mo n y o n a t e l e v i s i o n m o n i t o rv i o l a t e d De f e n d a n t s ’ S i x th Am e n d m e n tc o n f r o n t a t i o n r i g h t s , we
v a c a te th e irc o n v ic tio n s a n d r e m a n d f o ra n e w tr ia l. CO NV I CT I ON S V AC AT E D; RE MAND E D F OR A N E W T RI AL
.“ In a l l c ri m i n a l p r o s e c ut i o n s , th e a c c u s e d s h a l l e n j o y th e ri ght . . . t o b e c o n f r o nt e d w ith 1 th e w i tn e s s e s a g a i n s th i m. . . . ” U
. S
. C o n s t . am e n d
. V I. Rul e 15 prov ide s, in re le va nt p art : 2 Depositions (a) When Taken. (1 ) I n Gen eral . Apa

rt y may mov e that a

pros pe c tiv e wi tne ss b e depo se d in order to p r e s e r v e te s ti mo ny f

o r trial. T h e c o urt ma

y gr ant th e mo ti o n b e c a

u s e of exceptional circ umstances a nd in the interest of justice. . . .

. . . (c) Def endant’ s Presenc e. (1) De fe n d ant in Custody . The off icer who has c ustody

of the de fenda

nt must produce the defendant at the deposition a nd keep the def

endant in the witness’ s pre se nc e duri ngthee xami natio n, un le ss t hede fend ant: (A) w aives in writingthe right to be prese nt; or (B ) per sists i n disruptive condu ct justifying e x clusion after being warn ed b y the cour

t that disruptive conduct will result in the defendant' s exclusion. (2) De fenda

nt Not in Cust ody . A d ef endant who is not in custody has the right upon reque st to be prese nt at the deposition, subject to any conditions imposed by

the cour t. . . . Fe d. R. Crim. P . 15. 25 T JO F L A T , C i rcu i tJu d g e, d i ssen t i n g , i n w h i ch B IR C H an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es, j oi n: T he courtho l ds th ata di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on t o p er m i tt he l i ve, at -tri al t e s t i m ony , vi a t w o- w a y vi de o tr a ns m i s s i on, of a w i tne s s i n a fo rei gn c ountr y a nd b eyo n d t h e co u rt ’ s su b p o en a p o w er v i o l at es a d efen d an t ’ s C o n fro n t at i o n C l au se 1
r i ght s . A c c or di ng t o t he c our t , t hi s i s pr i m a r i l y be c a us e the a va i l a bi l i ty of a de pos i t i on pur s ua ntt o F e d. R
. C r i m . P
. 15 r e nde r s i t“ unne c e s s a r y ” t o de pr i ve the de f e nda ntof 2 h is r ig h t to b e in th e p h y s ic a l p r e s e n c e o f a te s tif y in g w itn e s s . B e c a u s e I d is a g r e e w ith the m a j or i ty ’ s C onf

r ont a t i on C l a us e a na l y s i s a nd f i nd f a ul ti n the c our t ’ s a ppl i c a t i on26

of the gove r ni ng S upr e m e C our tpr e c e de nt s , I r e s pe c t f ul l y di s s e nt . P a r t I a na l y z e s the procedure und erthe fr am ew ork u t i l i ze d b y the m aj ori ty a nd fi nd s no con st i tut i on al defi ci ency . P ar tII appl i es a di ff er ent , and i n m y v i ew corr ec t , fr am ew ork and ar ri ves atth e sam e co n cl u si o n . P artIII b ri efl y co n cl u d es. I. T h e C o n f

r o n ta tio n C la u s e p r o te c ts a d e f e n d a n t’s r ig h t “to b e c o n f r o n t e d w ith the w i tne s s ag ai ns thi m . ” U
. S
. C ons t . a m e nd. V I
. T hi s r i ghtc a nnotbe r e duc e d t o a si ng ul arri gh tt o b e physi ca l l y pre se nt as a w i tness t es t i fi es . A s the S up re m e C ou rthas st at ed , th e ri g h tp ro t ect ed b y t h e C l au se h as sev eral co m p o n en t s: [T ] h e ri g h tg u aran t eed b y t h e C o n f r o n ta t i o n C l au se i n cl u d es n o to n l y a “ pe r s ona l e xa m i na t i on, ” buta l s o “ ( 1) i ns ur e s tha tthe w i tne s s w i l l gi ve hi s s t a t e m e nt s unde roa th – t hus i m pr e s s i ng hi m w i th the s e r i ous ne s s of the m a t t e ra nd gua r di ng a ga i ns t the l i e by the pos s i bi l i ty of a pe na l ty f or perj ur y ; ( 2) f

or c e s t he w i tne s s t o s ubm i tt o c r os s - e xa m i na t i on, the ‘ gr e a t e s tl eg al en g i ne e ve ri nve nt e d f r om the di s c ove r y of

truth’ ; [ a nd] ( 3) pe r m i t s the j u r y tha ti s t o de c i de the de f e nda nt ’ s f

a t e t o obs e r ve the d e m e a n o ro f

th e w itn e s s in m a k in g h is s ta te m e n t, th u s a id in g th e ju r y in as se ss i ng hi s c re di bi l i ty. ” M a r y l a nd v. C r a i g, 497 U
. S
. 836, 845 - 46, 110 S
. C t . 3157, 3163, 111 L
. E d. 2d 666 ( 1 9 9 0 ) ( c i t a t i o n o mi t t e d ) ( a l t e r a t i o n i n o r i g i n a l ) ( q u o t i n g Ca l i f o r n i a v . G r e e n , 3 9 9 U
. S. 14 9, 15 8, 90 S
. C t . 19 30 , 19 35 , 26 L
. E d. 2d 48 9 (19 70 ))
. A s s uch, “ fa ce -t o-fa ce
c onf r ont a t i o n . . . i s n o t th e s i n e q u a n o n o f th e c o n f r o n t a t i o n r i g h t , ” i d
. a t847, 110 S
. C t . a t 3164, a nd “ m us t oc c a s i ona l l y gi ve w a y t o c ons i de r a t i ons of publ i c pol i c y a nd27

the neces si t i es of th e ca se ,” id . at84 9, 11 0 S
. C t . at31 65 (quo t i ng M att ox v. U ni t ed S t a t e s , 156 U
. S
. 237, 243, 15 S
. C t . 337, 340, 39 L
. E d. 409 ( 1895) ) ( i nt e r na l quot a t i on
m a r k s o m itte d )
. S pe c i f i cal l y, t he S upr e m e C our tha s he l d tha t“ a de f e nda nt ’ s r i ghtt o c onf

r ont
ac cusa t ory w i tness es m ay be sa t i sf i ed abse nt a physi ca l , fa ce -t o-fa ce confront at i on at tr i a l onl y w he r e de ni a l of su ch c onf r ont a t i on i s ne c e s s a r y t o f ur the ra n i m por t a nt p u b lic p o lic y a n d o n ly w h e r e th e r e lia b ility o f th e te s tim o n y is o th e r w is e a s s u r e d .” C r a i g, 497 U
. S
. a t850, 110 S
. C t . 3166. T he m a j or i ty a ppl i e s thi s tw o- pa r tt e s ta nd f i nds the pr oc e dur e us e d he r e l a c ki ng f or s e ve r a l r e a s ons . F i r s t , the publ i c pol i c i e s the di s tr i c tc our tf

ound i n “ pr ovi di ng the f a c t - f i nde rw i th cr uc i a l e vi de nc e , ” a nd

“ expedi t i ou sl y a nd j ust l y r es ol vi ng t he ca se , ” w hi l e “ i m po rt antpu bl i c pol i ci es , ” “ ar e
n o tth e t yp e o f p u b l i c p o l i ci es t h at are i m p o rt an ten o u g h t o o u tw ei g h th e D efen d an t s’
r ig h ts to c o n f

r o n t th e ir a c c u s e r s f

a c e - to - f a c e .” A n te a t 1 6 - 1 7 . S e c o n d , th e m a jo r ity f a u lts th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f o rm a k in g “ n o c a s e - s p e c if ic f in d in g s o f

f a c t th a t w o u ld
s u p p o r t a c o n c lu s io n th a t th is c a s e is d if f e r e n t f r o m a n y o th e r c r im in a l p r o s e c u tio n in
w hi ch t he G ov er nm entw ou l d fi nd i tconv eni entt o p re se ntt es t i m on y by tw o-w ay vi de o c o n f

e r e n c e . ” A n t e a t1 7
. Fi n a l l y , th e c o u r ts u g g e s t s th a t , b e c a u s e o f t he
a va i l a bi l i ty of

a de pos i t i on pur s ua ntt o R ul e 15, i tw a s n o t “ n ec e s s a r y t o de ny t he de f e nda nthi s r i ghtt o a phy s i c a l f a c e - t o- f a c e c onf r ont a t i on. ” A nt e a t18.28

E ven ass um i ng t he m aj ori ty has appl i ed t he corre ctconst i tut i o n al te st , I par t
w ay s w i th the m aj ori ty’ s anal ys i s from the begi nn i ng . Iti s bey on d reproach thatt here is a n im p o r ta n t p u b lic p o lic y in p r o v id in g th e f a c t- f in d e rw ith c r u c i a l, r e lia b le t est i m o n y an d i n st i tu t i n g p r o c ed u res t h aten su re t h e i n t eg ri ty o f t h e j u d i ci al p ro cess. S ee O hi o v. R ob er t s, 44 8 U
. S
. 56 , 64 , 10 0 S
. C t . 25 31 , 25 38 , 65 L
. E d. 2d 59 7 (19 80 ),
ove r rul e d on othe rgr ounds by C r a w f or d v. W a s hi ngt on, 541 U
. S
. 36, 124 S
. C t . 1354, 15 8 L
. E d. 2d 17 7 (20 04 ) (“ [E ] very j uri sdi ct i on has a strong i nt er es ti n eff ec t i ve l aw enforce m ent , and i n t he devel op m ent and p re ci se form ul at i on of t he rul es of evi dence
a ppl i c a bl e i n c r i m i na l pr oc e e di ngs . ” ) ; M a r t i ne z v. C our tof A ppe a l , 528 U
. S
. 152, 163, 120 S
. C t . 684, 692, 145 L
. E d. 2d 597 ( 2000) ( “ [ T ] he ove r r i di ng s t a t e i nt e r e s ti n the fa i r and ef

fi ci entadm i ni stra t i on of j ust i ce ” i s s i gn i fi ca ntenou gh t o “ ou tw ei gh an i nv as i on of t he appel l ant ’ s i nt er es ti n se l f- re pres ent at i on . ”) ; U ni t ed S t at es v. S chef fe r, 5 2 3 U .S . 3 0 3 , 3 0 8 - 0 9 , 1 1 8 S
. C t. 1 2 6 1 , 1 2 6 4 , 1 4 0 L . E d . 2 d 4 1 3 (1 9 9 8 ) ( “A d e f e n d a n t’s r ig h t to p r e s e n t r e le v a n t e v id e n c e is n o t u n lim ite d , b u t r a th e ris s u b je c t to
r e a s ona bl e r e s tr i c t i ons . A de f e nda nt ’ s i nt e r e s ti n pr e s e nt i ng s uc h e vi de nc e m a y t hus

‘ bow t o a c c om m oda t e ot he r l e gi t i m a t e i nt e r e s t s i n the c r i m i na l tr i a l pr oc e s s . ’
. . . [ T he i nt e r e s t s he r e ] i nc l ude e ns ur i ng t ha tonl y r e l i a bl e e vi de nc e i s i ntr oduc e d a ttr i a l [ a nd] pr e s e r vi ng t he c our tm e m be r s ’ r ol e i n de t e r m i ni ng c r e di bi l i ty . . . . ” (foot not e a nd
c i t a t i ons om i t t e d) ( quot i ng R oc k v. A r ka ns a s , 483 U
. S
. 44, 55, 107 S
. C t . 2704, 2711,29

9 7 L. Ed
. 2 d 37 ( 1 9 8 7 ) ( q u o t i n g Ch a mb e r s v . M i s s i s s i p p i , 4 1 0 U
. S. 2 8 4 , 2 9 5 , 9 3 S. C t . 10 38 , 10 46 , 35 L
. E d. 2d 29 7 ( 19 73 )) (i nt er nal qu ot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed)) ); i d. at 31 2 - 13 (199 8) (“ It i s equal l y cl ea r that [M i l i t ar y R ul e of E vi dence 70 7, w hi ch m akes pol y gr a ph e vi de nc e i na dm i s s i bl e i n co u rt -m a r t i a l pr oc e e di ngs ] s e r ve s a s e c ond l e gi t i m a t e gove r nm e nt a l i nt e r e s t : P r e s e r vi ng the c our tm e m be r s’ c or e f unc t i on of
m a k i n g c r e d i b i l i ty d e t e r mi n a t i o n s i n c r i mi n a l tr i a l s . A f u n d a me n t a l p r e mi s e of

our
c r im i n al tri al syst em i s th at ‘ th e j u ry i s th e l i e d et ect o r. ’ ” (o p i n i o n o f T h o m a s , J .) ( q u o tin g U n ite d S ta te s v . B a r n a r d , 4 9 0 F .2 d 9 0 7 , 9 1 2 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 7 3 ) ) ( e m p h a s is
om i t t e d) ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. K obl i t z , 803 F
. 2d 1523, 1528 ( 11t h C i r . 1986) ( hol di ng that“ the G ov er nm ent ’ s i nt er es t i n the ef fi ci ent adm i ni stra t i on of j ust i ce ” out w ei gh ed
a ppe l l a nt s ’ S i xt h A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o be r e pr e s e nt e d a ttr i a l by the i r co u n se l of
c hoi c e ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G i ga nt e , 971 F
. S upp. 755, 756 - 57 ( E
. D
. N
. Y
. 1997) (“ A m er i ca n cri m i nal procedure .
. . i s pra gm at ic. It re cogn i ze s thatthi s i deal cond i t i on [a w i tness t es t i fy i ng i n pers on , i n cou rt ] ca n n otbe m ade a vai l abl e i n every i ns t a nc e i f

t he r e i s t o be a n e f

f e c t i ve s e a r c h f

or the truth i n a n a t m os phe r e pr ot e c t i ng the de f e nda nt ’ s ne e ds f

or f a i r ne s s a nd due pr oc e s s a nd the publ i c ’ s r i ght t o pr ot e c t i on
a ga i ns tc r i me . ” ) ; Ca r l s e n v . M o r r i s , 5 5 6 F. Su p p . 3 2 0 , 3 2 2 ( D
. C. U t a h 1 9 8 2 ) ( “ T he i nt ent of the st atut e i s t o pre vent i nt er fe re nce w i th the fa i r adm i ni stra t i on of j ust i ce , a n unque s t i ona bl y c om pe l l i ng gove r nm e nt a l i nt e r e s t . ” ) ; H a r r e l l v. S t a t e , 70 9 S o. 2dDe s p i t e th e m aj o ri ty ’s co n cl u s i o nth atp u b l i c p o l i cy

ats t ak e h er e i s n o ts i gn i fi canten o u gh 3 “to outweigh the De fe n d an ts’ rights to confront their a ccusers fa ce- to-fac e,” a nte at 17, it is clear that the m ajority ’s opi nion is focuse d primarily on the availability of a deposition as an alternative to obtain a witness’s testi mony . The majority does not herereje ct the use of the two-wa

y proce dure where a deposition is not fea sible, or i n the “rare , exceptional case ,” anteat 19, where pre senceat a deposition ca

nnot be guara

nteed. Acc ording ly , the court’s opinion should not be rea d to hold that thepu bli c po lic ie s invo lve d h e reareno t si gnif icant enough to satis fy

thefi rs t pron gof

theCr a ig analysis. 30 1 3 6 4 , 1 3 7 0 ( F la . 1 9 9 8 ) ( “[ T ]h e [ f o r e ig n ] w itn e s s e s w e r e a b s o lu te ly e s s e n tia l to th is
c a s e . . . . [ T ] he r e i s a n i m por t a nts t a t e i nt e r est i n re s ol vi ng c r i m i na l m a t t e r s i n a
m a nne rw hi c h i s both e xpe di t i ous a nd j us t . I n or de rt o do t ha t i n t h i s ca s e , the te s tim o n y o f th e s e tw o w itn e s s e s w a s a n e c e s s ity .” )
. I n d e e d , e n s u r in g th e r e lia b ility 3 of ad m itt ed t es t i m on y a nd sa fe gu ar di ng the i nt egri ty of the j ud i ci al proces s a re core f u n c tio n s o f

th e C o n f

r o n ta tio n C la u s e its e lf: “T h e c e n tr a l c o n c e r n o f th e [ C la u s e ] is to e n s u r e th e r e lia b ility o f th e e v id e n c e a g a in s t a c r i m in a l d e f e n d a n t b y s u b

je c tin g it to r ig o r o u s te s tin g in th e c o n te x t o f a n a d v e r s a r y p r o c e e d in g b e f o r e th e tr ie ro f

f a c t.” C rai g , 4 9 7 U
. S
. at8 4 5 , 1 1 0 S
. C t . at3 1 6 3 (em p h asi s ad d ed ); see al so W h i t e v . Il l i n o i s, 502 U
. S
. 346, 356 - 57, 11 2 S
. C t . 736, 743, 116 L
. E d. 2d 848 ( 1992) ( “ [ T ] he C o n f r o n ta tio n C la u s e h a s a s a b a s ic p u rp o s e th e p r o m o tio n o f th e ‘in te g r ity o f th e f a c tf i ndi ng pr oc e s s . ’ ” ( quot i ng C oy v. I ow a , 487 U
. S
. 1012, 1020, 108 S
. C t . 2798, 2802, 1 0 1 L . E d . 2 d 8 5 7 ( 1 9 8 8 ) ( q u o tin g K e n tu c k y v . S tin c e r , 4 8 2 U .S
. 7 3 0 , 7 3 6 , 1 0 7 S . C t. 2 6 5 8 , 2 6 6 2 , 9 6 L . E d . 2 d 6 3 1 ( 1 9 8 7 ) ) ( in te r n a l q u o ta tio n m a r k s o m itte d ) ) )
.31

M or e ove r , pr ovi di ng t he f a c t - f i nde r w i th r e l i a bl e t e s t i m ony a nd j us t l y r e s ol vi ng the c a s e a r e the s a m e publ i c pol i c i e s tha tw e r e f ound i m por t a nte nough t o w a r r a ntt he
one - w a y pr oc e dur e a ppr ove d i n C r a i g. D e s pi t e the C r a i g C our t ’ s s ugge s t i on tha tt he p u b lic p o lic y a t is s u e w a s th e “S ta te ’s in te r e s t in th e p h y s ic a l a n d p s y c h o lo g ic a l w e llbei ng of chi l d abu se vi ct i m s, ” C ra i g, 49 7 U
. S
. at85 3, 11 0 S . C t . at31 67 , i ti s c l ea r th a t d e p r iv in g a d e f

e n d a n t o f h i s r i g h t to p h y s ic a l p r e s e n c e is n o t “n e c e s s a r y ” to f u r th e r th a t o b v io u s ly c o m p e llin g in te r e s t. T h e S ta te c o u ld ju s t a s e a s ily f u r th e rth is i nt er es t b y notforc i ng the chi l d t o t es t i fy
. Indeed, Just i ce S ca l i a r em ar ked as m uch i n di s s e nt : “ T he S t a t e ’ s i nt e r e s the r e i s i n f a c tn o m or e a nd no l e s s t ha n w ha tt he S t at e’ s i nt er es t al w ay s i s w hen i t se eks t o get a cl as s of evi dence adm i t t ed i n cri m i nal pr oc e ed i n gs : m or e c onvi c t i ons of gui l ty de f

e nda nt s . ” I d. a t867, 110 S
. C t . a t3175 ( S c a lia , J ., d is s e n tin g )
. I n o th e r w o r d s , th e S ta te ’s in te r e s ts w e r e to p r o v id e th e f a c tfi nd erw i th rel i abl e t es t i m on y, ensure the i nt egri ty of the j ud i ci al proces s, and fost er
r e s pe c t f o r th e ru l e o f l a w . Th a t th e s e i n t e r e s t s c a n c o me i n t o c o n f l i c tw i t h a d e f e n d a n t’s r ig h t to p h y s ic a l p r e s e n c e a s a r e s u lt o f p h y s ic a l c o n f

r o n ta tio n its e lf

a s in C r a i g, a s oppos e d t o the l i m i t a t i ons on a c our t ’ s s ubpoe na pow e ra s he r e , doe s not hi ng t o d et ractfro m t h e i m p o rt an ce o f t h ese i n t erest s. I n f a c t , i ti s pr e c i s e l y be c a us e of the i m por t a nc e of

obt a i ni ng r e l i a bl e t e s t i m ony thatthi s court has re peat edl y expres se d i t s concern w i th the use of deposi t i on s i n l i euWhil e it is true that the Rule does provide a de fenda n t wi th an o p p o rtunity

for presenc e, 4 as discussed infra, there is no rea son to believ e th at the Constituti on guara ntees a defendant’s prese nce at a deposition. Ifind it highly problematic that the constitutionality of a procedure ca

n re s t o n th e wh i m o f th e R u l e s dr a f t e r s . E i th e r th e p r o c e d

ur e u s e d h e r e i s a d e qu at e t o p ro te c t a de fend ant’ s Co nf

ro ntatio n Cl a

us e ri ght o r i t is no t. That de te rm inatio n o ught n ot c ha ng e e ve ry tim e the Rules do. 32 of tr i a l t e s t i m ony . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D r ogul , 1 F
. 3 d 1 5 4 6 , 1551 ( 11t h C i r . 1993) (“ D ep o si t i o n s g en eral l y are d i sfav o red i n cri m i n al cases. . . . In p art i cu l ar, b ecau se of the a bs e nc e of

pr oc e dur a l pr ot e c t i ons a f f or de d pa r t i e s i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s , f or e i gn depo si t i on s a re su sp ec tand, consequent l y, no tfa vo re d. ”) ; i d. at15 52 (“ T he pri m ar y
r e a s ons f orthe l a w ’ s nor m a l a nt i pa thy t ow a r d de pos i t i ons i n c r i m i na l c a s e s a r e the f a c t f i nde r ’ s usu al i na bi l i ty t o obs e r ve the de m e a norof de pos i t i on w i tne s s e s , a nd the th r e a t th a t p o s e s to th e d e f e n d a n t’s S ix th A m e n d m e n t c o n f r o n ta tio n r ig h ts .” ( f

o o tn o te
om i t t e d) ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M i l i a n- R odr i gue z , 828 F
. 2d 679, 686 ( 1 1 t h C i r. 1987) ( “ T he de c i s i on w he the rt o a l l ow . . . de pos i t i ons i s c om m i t t e d t o the di s c r e t i on of t he di s tr i c tc our t , butthe us e of de pos i t i ons i n c r i m i na l c a s e s i s not fav o red be c a us e t he f a c t f i nde r doe s not ha ve a n oppor tuni ty t o obs e r ve the w i tne s s ’ [ s ] de m e a nor . ” ( c i t a t i on
o m itte d ) ) . T h a t a f

e d e r a l ru le o f

c r im in a l p r o c e d u r e p r o v id e s f o rp r e s e n c e a t a depo si t i on , se e F ed . R
. C ri m . P
. 15 (c ), i s i rr el evantt o w het her the t w o-w ay vi deo tr a ns m i s s i on i s ne c e s s a r y t o f ur the rthe i m por t a ntpubl i c pol i c y of pr ovi di ng i m por t a nt , c r e di bl e e vi de nc e a t tr i a l
. T he S t a t e ’ s i nt e r e s ti s notm e r e l y i n pr ovi di ng 4 evi dence, i ti s i n prov i di ng re l i abl e evi dence. In thi s r egar d, t he t w o p roce du re s a re33

no tequi val ent , and i ti s ce rt ai nl y w i thi n the di sc re t i on of a tri al courtt o d et er m i ne t hat a deposi t i on i s notan adequat e re pl ac em ent for t es t i m on y a tt ri al , before the fi nd er -off a c t. In som e c as es a tri al courtm ay determ in e th ata deposi t i on i s a sa t i sf ac t ory subst i tut e f

or l i ve t es t i m on y a nd t he added C on fr on t at i on C l ause benefi t of pres ence
a tthe de pos i t i on r e nde r s t he de pos i t i on th e p referred method f orobt a i ni ng the t es t i m on y. In ot her c as es , the co u rtm ay det er m i ne t hatthe op po rtun i ty f or a
cr edi bi l i ty as se ss m ent prov i ded by l i ve, tw o-w ay tra nsm i ss i on i s o f p ar t i cul ar i m po rt ance t o ensure the re l i abi l i t y of the t es t i m on y. S uch a det er m i nat i on , ho w ever , i s une qui voc a l l y c a s e - s pe c i f i c . It m ay d epe nd on t he t e c hnol ogy a va i l a bl e f ort he d e p o s itio n . W h e th e rth e d e p o s itio n w ill b e ta p e d a n d p la y e d b e f o r e th e ju r y o rs im p ly
re ad i nt o evi dence i s a n i m po rt antfa ct or t o c o n si der i n d et er m i ni ng w het her a de pos i t i on i s s uf

f i c i e nt l y r e l i a bl e t o s ubs t i tut e f ori n- c our tt e s t i m ony . S i m i l arl y, t he type ( e. g. , on e- w ay v. tw o-w ay tra nsm i ss i on ) and qu al i ty o f t he t ec hn ol og y t o b e use d du ri ng tra nsm i ss i on shou l d b e t aken i nt o acc ou nt . A di stri ctcourtm i gh tal so consi der the ne c e s s i ty a nd na tur e of t he w i tness’ s t est i m ony . S pe c i f i c a l l y , w he the rt he testim o n y is a cc u sa to ry o r d es cr ip ti v e in n atu re m ig h t im p ac t th e c o u rt’s det er m i nat i on of t he re l i abi l i ty e nh ance m entthat coul d r es ul t fr om ph ys i ca l pres ence . A d d itio n a lly , t h e c o u r t s h o u ld c o n s id e rth e e f f e c t o f d e la y c a u s e d b y a d e p o s itio n inIhasten to note that I do not believe a

court should eng ag e in a c onceptual b al an ci n gof 5 whether a par ticular c onfrontation ele ment is invariably more important than a

nother. Ido believe, ho we ve r, that a

dis tric t c ourt

mus t ta keint o a c c ount t

hee xtent to wh ic h a

de fend ant’s right t o confrontation has bee n abridg ed; extensive deprivations are at lea st prima fac ie evide nce of unr e l i a b i l i ty. 34 a f or e i gn c o u n tr y d u r i n g th e c o u r s e o f tr i a l
. N o to n l y c o u l d th e d e l a y a f f e c tt he

“ e f f i c i e nt ” a dm i ni s tr a t i on of j us t i c e , buta c our tm i ghta l s o de t e r m i ne tha ta l e ngthy de l a y w oul d a f

f e c t t h e j u ry’ s r e c ol l e c t i on orthe a va i l a bi l i ty of othe rw i tne s s e s . T he
c our tm i ghta l s o c ons i de rt he i m por t a nc e of the t e s t i m ony be i ng gi ve n i n the c ont e xt of tr i a l r a t he rtha n m onths ory e a r s pr i or . T he c our ts houl d al s o c ons i de rthe e xt e nt
a g iv en al t ern at i v e d ep ri v es a d efen d an t o f h i s C o n fro n t at i o n C l au se ri g h t s to

“ ph ys i ca l pres ence , oat h, cr oss- exam i nat i on , and o bser vat i on of dem ea no r by the t ri er
o f f act. . . . ” C rai g , 4 9 7 U
. S
. at8 4 6 , 1 1 0 S
. C t . at3 1 6 3
. N eed l ess t o say, t h ese 5
c ons i de r a t i o n s are n ote xha us t i ve , a nd i ti s w e l l w i thi n t he s ound di s c r e t i on of t he di stri ctcourtt o d et er m i ne ho w such fa ct ors i m pact the re l i abi l i ty and fe as i bi l i ty of a depo si t i on . A n abst ra ctdet er m i nat i on thatthe avai l ab il it y o f a depo si t i on m akes depri vi ng a def

endantof hi s r i gh tt o ph ys i ca l pres ence at tri al un nece ss ar y t o furt her the publ i c pol i cy o f p ro v i di ng the f a c t - f i nde rw i th r e l i a bl e t e s t i m ony i gnor e s the
r e a litie s o f

tr ia l a n d p r e s u m e s th a t a ll f o r m s o f te s tim o n y a r e c r e a te d e q u a l. T h is c a s e - s p e c if

ic d e te r m in a tio n o f th e r e lia b ility o f a d e p o s itio n a s o p p o s e d to liv e , tw o - w a y v id e o te s tim o n y is p r e c is e ly w h a t th e S u p r e m e C o u r t r e q u ir e d in C r a igThe majority proce eds t o exagg erate the “floodg ate” potential of permitti ng the two-wa y 6 proc e durein t

his c a se . T hec ourt

c la ims that [a] ll criminal prosec utions include at l ea s t some evidenc e cr ucial to the Governm en t ’s ca se, and the re is no doubt that many criminal ca ses could be more expeditious ly

resolved w ereit unnecessa ry fo r wi tnesses to appe ar a t trial. I f we wer e to ap p r o v e intro d

u c ti o no f te s ti mo ny

in th is ma nn e r , o nth is r e c o r d , e v ery prosec utor wishing to present testimony from a w i tn es s overse as would argue that prov idi ngc ru c ia l evi de nc e and re so lvi ngthec a see xpe ditiou sly areimp or tant p ub lic policies that support the admission fo testimony by two-wa y video conf

erence. Ante at 17. Ye t what the majority ignores is that it was not just more co nv en ient to use two-wa y vid e o tr ans mis sio n to ob ta in liv e te sti mony in thi s c a se , it wa s ne c e ssa ry to do so . T his is b e c a

us e the witnesses were beyond the district court’s subpoe na power, and hence , unavailable . Despite the majority ’s sug g estion, this is not true of e very overse as witness. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1783, “[a] court of th e United

State s ma

y orde r t heiss ua nc e of a su bp oe na re qu iringthea

pp e ara nc e a s a witness before it . .
. of a national or resident of the United States who is in a fore ign country . . . .” Thus , it is o nl y for eign n atio nals o uts idetheUn ite d St ate s who arebe yon d th e fe de ral c ourt s’ su bp oen a power. So d e sp iteany g iven p ro se c uto r’ s si nc e re st w ish e s, un le ss a wi tne ss i s tr

uly unavailable , making two-wa y transmission necessa

ry to obtain the witness’s testimony at trial, the prosec ution has no choicebut to have the witn es s t es tify in the phy sical pre senceof both the de fend ant a

nd thec ourt . 35 a nd t he m a

j or i ty he r e f

i nds l a c ki ng . T h e m aj o r i ty r e buke s t he di s tr i c tc our tf ornot
m ak i n g “ case-sp eci fi c fi n d i n g s o f fact th atw o u l d su p p o rta co n cl u si o n th atth i s case i s di ff er entfr om any ot her c ri m i nal pro se cut i on , ” a nt e a t17 , or t hat“ the w i tness es 6 and D ef endant s c ou l d n otbe pl ac ed i n t he sa m e r oo m for the t aki ng of pre- t ri al depo si t i on t es t i m on y pursuantt o R ul e 15, ” a nt e a t20
. In do i ng so, the m aj ori ty her e
m a k e s to o m u c h o f th e u n iq u e c o n te x t o f C r a ig
. I n C r a ig , it w a s c o n f r o n ta tio n its e lf thathad t o b e a vo i ded i n o rdert o o btai n t he t es t i m on y. A cc ordi ng l y, the C ou rt
re qu ired a case -s peci fi c f i nd i ng thatdepri vi ng the defendantof hi s r i gh tt o p hysi ca l pr e s e nc e “ i s ne c e s s a r y t o pr ot e c tthe w e l f a r e of the pa r t i c ul a rc hi l d w i tne s s w ho s e e ks t o t e s t i f y , ” a nd tha t “ the c hi l d w i tne s s w oul d be tr a um a t i z e d, not by t h e co ur tr oomThereis no sugg estion that the trial court abused its discretion in makingits determination 7 in this case. The majority

also sug g est s th at the failure to amend Rule 26 of the Fe deral Rules of 8 Criminal Procedure to allow f or two-wa

y video transmission in certain case s is somehow releva nt to the resolution of this case . Ante at 13 - 14. It is unclear whether the m ajority ’s discussion g oes to the constitutionality

of the proc edureor the scopeof cour ts’ inhere nt pow er to authorize it. To the extent the majority

sug g ests that either thereje ction of the propose d am en dment or Jus tice Scalia’s state ment can becon s tru ed as a Supreme Court stateme nt on the constitutionality of the 36 g e n e r a l l y , b u t b y th e p r e s e n c e o f t h e d e f e n d a n t . ” Cr a i g , 4 9 7 U
. S. a t8 5 5 - 5 6 , 1 1 0 S. C t. a t 3 1 6 9 . H e r e , th e r e is n o a r g u m e n t th a t th e e f f e c t o f p h y s ic a l c o n f

r o n ta tio n its e lf
ne c e s s i t a t e s de pr i vi ng t he de f e nda ntof

hi s fu l l C onf

r ont a t i on r i ght
. R a the r , the l i m i t a t i on of

t he c our t ’ s s ubpoe na pow e rs o r e qui r e s . A s s uc h, a f i ndi ng tha tt he d efen d an tcan n o tb e p h ysi cal l y i n th e sam e ro o m as t h e w i tn ess w o u l d fai l t o ad d ress th e r e a s o n f

o rth e p o te n tia l d e p r iv a tio n . A c c o r d in g ly , o n c e it is d e te r m in e d th a t a p a r tic u la rw itn e s s c a n n o t b e h a le d in to c o u r t, a n d w ill n o t a p p e a rv o lu n ta r ily , it s h o u ld be l ef t t o the court ’ s ca se -by- ca se di sc re t i on t o det er m i ne i f there ar e ot her a l t er nat i ves to tw o - w a y tr a n s m is s io n th a t b o th p r o v id e c o m p a r a b ly r e l i a b l e te s tim o n y a n d f u lly p r o te c t t h e d e f

e n d a n t’s C o n f

r o n ta tio n C la u s e r ig h ts . I f n o s u c h a lte r n a tiv e is
a va i l a bl e , t h e co u r tha s m a de a c a s e - s pe c i f i c de t e r m i na t i on t ha tde pr i vi ng t he defe nd antof hi s r i gh tt o p re se nce i s nec es sa ry to fu rt her the i m po rt antpu bl i c pol i cy
o f p r o v id in g th e f

a c t- f in d e rw ith d e p e n d a b le t e s t i m o n y a n d p r e s e r v in g th e in te g r ity and rel i ab il it y of t he j ud i ci al proces s. Iti s thi s i nd i vi du al i ze d d et er m i nat i on t hat 7
m a k e s a p a r tic u la rc a s e “d if f e r e n t f r o m a n y o th e rc r im in a l p r o s e c u tio n .” 8proce dure, it is flatly wrong . To beg in, Justice Scalia only sug g ests that the proposed a mendment is of “dubious validity ,” Amendments to Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of C riminal Procedure, 207 F.R.D. 89, 93 (2002) (statement of Scalia, J .), a statement which just as easily can bemade of ever y constitutional c h al l en g e the Supre me Court elec ts to hear. Morefundame ntally , howeve r, the opinion repre sents nothing morethan the leg al musings of a SupremeCourt Justice on an issue that has yet to be brie fed a

nd argued in a c ase or

controve rsy

befor e th e Court. “[S] uch adva nce expressions of leg al judgment upon issues w hich re main unfocuse d beca use they arenot pressed before the Court with that clea r conc rete ness provided when a que stion eme rge s prec isely framed and nec essar

y for de cision from a c lash of adversar y argument exploring every aspec t o f a multifacete d situation embracingconflicting and demanding interests, wehave c onsistently ref used to give .” United States v. F rueha uf, 365 U.S. 146, 157, 81 S. Ct. 547, 554, 5 L
. Ed. 2d 476 (1961). Justi c e Sc a lia

ha s r e c ognize d a s mu c h: “ In my view e ve n th e a do pti ngJusti c e s’ tho ughts , un promulg ate d a s Ru le s, haveno a uth oritativ e (a s op po se d to p e rs ua siv e ) e ff e c t, a ny more tha n th e ir tho ughts reg ardi ng an o pin ion (re fl e c te d in

e xch ang e s o f m e mora

nd a be fo retheop ini on

iss ue s) authoritatively

demonstrates themeaningof that opinion.” Tome v. Un i t ed S t ates, 513 U.S. 150, 16 8 , 115 S. Ct . 696, 706, 130 L . Ed. 2d 574 (1995) ( Scalia, J., concurring ). Ac cording ly , the Go ve rnme nt’ s argument i s n o mo rean “ imp lic it c la im that it kn ow s bes t how to p ro te c t de fend ants ’ [co ns tit uti on a l] rights ,”ante at 14 , th an is any argument p ro ff

e re d b y theGo ve rnme nt i n a

c a se where the de fenda

nt happens to disagree . To the extent the majority ascribes a limitation on the court’s inherent power to the reje ction of the rule , it makes much ado a bout nothing. Not only

could the attempt to amend Rule 26 be viewed a s a constric tion or delineation of c ourts’ inherent power to auth o ri ze the proce dure a s opposed to a grant of pow er the courts previously lacke d, but it is fairly

uncontrove rsial that it was and re mains well within c ourts’ inhere nt pow er to a uthorize the proce dure f

or def endant’ s witnesses or for p rosecution witnesses so long a s the defendant conse nts. For pe rsuasive a uthority see 207 F.R.D. at 98 (2002) (stat em ent of Bre yer, J.). Whether a c ourt may simil arly authorize such a proce dure f

or prose cution witnesses without a defenda nt’s consent is a constitut ional issue, not one o f i nh e r e nta

uth o ri ty. 37 T he ci rc um st ance s of c as es such as thi s f orec l ose the po ss i bi l i ty of the i deal C on fr on t at i on al C l ause si tuat i on – n am el y c ross -e xam i nat i on of a s w orn-i n w i tness es i n t he p h y s i c a l p r e s e n c e o f b o th th e d e f

e n d a n ta n d th e f

i n d e r - o f
- f a c t . Th u s , t o t he
ex ten t t es ti m o n y w il l b e a d m itted in th es e c ircu m stan ce s, th e d ef en d an t’ s C on fr on t at i on ri gh t s m ustbe abri dg ed i n som e w ay . N on e of th e altern atives ar e i de nt i c a l t o e a c h ot he r or t o l i ve t e s t i m ony a t tr i a l
. N orc a n the a l t e r na t i ve s a l w a y s be
co n si d ered p erfect sub st i tu t es fo r o n e an o th er. H ere, th e d i stri ct co u rt , i n th e ex erci seThe sec ond pron g o f the Craiganalysis, requires thedistrict court to deter mine that “the 9 re lia bil ity of the tes tim ony

is o therw isea ssu

re d. ” Cr a ig , 4 97 U. S. at 85 0, 11 0 S. Ct. 31 66 . T hu s, the court must find not only that the two-wa y video procedure is more reliable than a deposition, but int ri ns ic a lly re lia blea s we ll. I se e no thi ng in t here c ord to su g g e st that th e dis tric t c ourt a bu se d it s discretion in this reg ard. 38 of i t s s ou nd d is cr et i on , m ade a consi dere d d et er m i nat i on t hatl i ve, t w o-w ay vi deo tr a ns m i s s i on of

una va i l a bl e w i tne s s e s ’ t e s t i m ony w a s ne c e s s a r y t o f ur the rt he i m p o rt an tp u b l i c p o l i cy o f p ro v i d i n g t h e fact fi n d er w i th cru c ia l, r el i ab l e t est i m o n y. T h i s i s al l C rai g d em an d s. 9 II. W hi l e I fi nd se ri ou s fa ul t w i th the m aj ori ty’ s appl i ca t i on of the C ra i g t es t , I a m perhaps m ost concerned abou tthe i l l og i ca l re sul tthatfol l ow s f rom the court ’ s f

ai l ure to e v a lu a te th e p r o c e d u r e in its p r o p e r c o n s titu tio n a l c o n te x t. T h e m a jo r ity ’s a n a ly s is i m pl i ci t l y pl ac es t w o-w ay vi deo t es t i m on y i n con st i tut i on al pu rgat ory. T he w i tness es
ar e not“ pres ent ” e no ug h t o b e c on si dere d in the defendant ’ s “ pres ence , ” butar e
so m eh o w “ p resen t ” i n co u rtw h ere t h e d efen d an ti s al so “p r e s e n t. ” In o th er w o rd s, d es p it e th e m ajo rity’s d eter m in atio n th at th e w itn es se s w er e n o t i n th e d ef en d an t’ s pres ence , i tanal yz ed t he t es t i m on y a s i f i tw er e gi ven “ i n c ou rt , ” as op po se d t o w hat i tr e a l l y i s – he a r s a y . V i e w i ng t he t e s t i m ony i n t hi s l i ght r e m ove s a ny doubt a s t o the p ro ced u re’ s co n st i tu t i o n al i ty.Of c ourse, doingso invariably treats the witness as outside of the de fenda nt’s p re s ence 10 despite them both being“pre sent” in cour t. Howeve r, the value of tre ating“pre sence” in a 39 E v al u at i n g th e p r o ced u re h ere as “ou t -o f-co u rtt est i m o n y, ” m ay, atl east i ni t i a l l y , s e e m pr e c l ude d by C r a i g i t s e l f
. A f t e ra l l , i f the S upr e m e C our ta na l y z e d the
one - w a y pr oc e dur e i n C r a i g a s i n- c our t , how c oul d the t w o- w a y pr oc e dur e a ti s s ue he r e be c ons i de r e d a ny thi ng buti n- c our t ? T he di f f e r e nc e bet w ee n C r a i g a nd t he procedure here re sul t s, I bel i eve, from the t ype of t es t i m on y f or w hi ch t he vi deo tra nsm i ss i on subst i tut es . In C ra i g, the w i tness w as avai l abl e t o t es ti fy ; t h e o ne-w ay pro ced u re w a s i nt e nde d t o r e duc e t he ps y c hol ogi c a l t r a um a of doi ng s o. T hus , the tr a n s m is s io n s e r v e d to r e p la c e th e te s tim o n y o f a w itn e s s w h o w a s o th e r w is e a v a ila b le to te s tif y in o p e n c o u r t. J u s tic e S c a lia , in d is s e n t, r e lie d o n th e w itn e s s ’s a v a ila b ility t o d i st i n g u i sh t h e t est i m o n y fro m h earsay: S o m e o f th e C o u rt’s an alys is se em s to su g g es t th at th e c h il d re n ’s t es t i m ony he r e w a s i t s e l f he a r s a y of

the s or tpe r m i s s i bl e unde rour C o n fro n t at i o n C l au se cases. T h atcan n o tb e. O u r C o n fro n t at i o n C l au se cond i t i on s f

or t he adm i ss i on of hears ay have l on g i ncl ud ed a “ general r e q u ir e m e n t o f

u n a v a ila b il i t y ” o f

th e d e c la r a n t. “I n th e u s u a l c a s e . . ., the prosec ut i on m ust ei ther produ ce , or dem on stra t e the un avai l abi l i ty of, th e d e c la r a n t w h o s e s ta te m e n t it w is h e s to u s e a g a in s t th e d e f e n d a n t.” C r a ig , 4 9 7 U .S . a t 8 6 5 , 1 1 0 S . C t. a t 3 1 7 4 ( S c a lia , J ., d is s e n tin g ) ( a lte r a tio n in
o r ig in a l) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) ( q u o tin g I d a h o v . W r ig h t, 4 9 7 U .S
. 8 0 5 , 8 1 5 , 1 1 0 S . C t. 3 1 3 9 , 3 1 4 6 , 1 1 1 L
. E d
. 2 d 6 3 8 ; R o b er ts , 4 4 8 U .S
. a t 6 5 , 1 0 0 S
. C t . at2 5 3 8 ). A s a
r e s u lt, it m a d e s e n s e to tr e a t th e te s tim o n y in C r a ig a s in
- c o u r t. 10consistent manner must be balanc ed ag ainst the value of treating f

unctional equ i v al en t s in a consistent constitutio n al m an ner. In Craig , the transmission was a dire ct replace ment for the inc o urtt e s t i m o ny o f

anav a i l a b l e w i tn e s s an d

i tw a s a p p r o p ri at e t o an a l yz e th e p r o c e d ur e a c c o r d i n g l y. Th e Cr awf

ord Co ur t sp e c ifical ly

me nti on s th at th e analysis a pp lie s to “ te sti mon ia l” 11 state me nts , s uc h a s p ri or

te sti mony

be fo re a gra

nd jur y (a t whic h p re se nc e is n ot p e rm itt e d) or at a former trial (which, if

civil, provides no pre senceguara ntee)
. 5 4 1 U.S . at 68, 124 S. Ct. at 1374. 40 I n thi s c a s e , how e ve r , the w i tne s s e s w e r e una va i l ab l e an d coul d notbe
c om pe l l e d t o t e s t i f

y a ttr i a l
. A s the m a

j or i ty ’ s o pi ni on m a ke s a bunda nt l y c l e a r , the tw o - w a y p r o c e d u r e s e r v e d a s a s t a n d
- i n f o ra d e p o s i t i o n
– h e a r s a y i n i t s p u r e s tf o r m. T h at th e actu al t est i m o n y w as g i v en d u ri n g tri al , i n fro n to f a j u ry, as o p p o sed t o , say, th e d a y b e f

o r e t h e tr ia l b e g a n , d o e s n o t c h a n g e th e a n a ly s is . T h e r e w a s n o w a y to br i ng the w i tne s s e s phy s i cal l y i n t o c our t . T he w i tne s s e s ’ t e s t i m ony c oul d onl y be obt a i ne d by de pos i t i on ortw o- w ay t r a ns m i s s i on. T ha tR ul e 15 pr ovi de s f orthe defe nd ant ’ s pres ence ata deposi t i on i s s i m i l ar l y i rr el evant . T he i ss ue before thi s c ou rt is w h e th e rp r e s e n c e is c o n s titu tio n a lly r e q u ir e d f o r e i t h e r t h e d e p o s itio n o rits f unc t i ona l r e pl a c e m e nt , the t w o- w a y vi de o tr a ns m i s s i on. T h e c o n s titu tio n a lity o f a d m ittin g o u t- o f

- c o u r t, te s tim o n ia l s ta te m e n t s is gove r n e d b y Cr a w f

o r d v . W a s h i n g t o n , 5 4 1 U
. S. 3 6 , 1 2 4 S. Ct
. 1 3 5 4 , 1 5 8 L
. E d. 2d 1 7 7 . “T e s tim o n i a l s t a t e m e n ts o f w itn e s s e s a b s e n t f

r o m tr ia l [ a r e a d m is s ib le ] o n ly
w h e r e th e d e c l a r a n t i s u n a v a i l a b l e , a n d o n l y w h e r e th e d e f e n d a n t h a s h a d a pr i or oppor tuni t y t o c r os s - e xa m i ne . ” I d. a t 59, 124 S
. C t . a t1369. P hy s i c a l pr e s e nc e i s not
m ent i on ed, no r i s i tre qu ired
. In thi s c as e, the w i tness es ’ st at em ent s w er e 11It is a lso ins tr uc tiv e that, d e sp iteRul e 15 , depo sition s for wh ic h the de fend ant wa s not pe rm itt e d to be pre sent havenot been f ound to violate either theRule or the Confrontation Cl ause. See , e.g ., United States v. Mueller, 74 F .3d 1152, 1156 - 57 (11th Cir. 1996); United States v. McKe eve, 131 F.3d 1, 7 - 10 (1st Cir. 1997); United States v. Kelly , 892 F.2d 255, 260 - 63 (3d Cir. 1989); United States v. Salim, 855 F.2d 944, 948 - 55 (2d Cir. 1988). 41 u n q u e s tio n a b ly te s tim o n ia l, a n d th e r e f o r e th e C r a w f

o r d r e q u ir e m e n ts w o u ld n e e d to b e sa t i s f i e d. T he de f

e nda nthe r e w a s gi ve n a f ul l oppor tuni ty t o c r os s e xa m i ne the
una va i l a bl e w i tne s s es. C ons t i tut i ona l i s s ue s e t t l e d. A c c or di ngl y , t he r e c a n be no qu es t i on that the procedure ut i l i ze d h er e, a m ec hani sm for obt ai ni ng t he ou t -of- court t es t i m on y of a n u navai l abl e w i tness , pass es const i tut i on al m ust er . III. F or t he foregoi ng re as on s, I bel i eve the l i ve, tw o-w ay vi deo t ra nsm i ss i on used i n thi s c a s e doe s not vi ol a t e t he de f e nda nt ’ s S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o c onf r ont a t i on. A c c o r d in g ly , I w o u ld a f f ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u r t.42

M A R C U S , C ir c u it J u d g e , d is s e n tin g , in w h ic h T J O F L A T a n d B I R C H , C ir c u it J udge s , j oi n: I jo in in J u d g e T

jo f la t’s o p in io n a n d w r i t e s e p a r a te ly to a d d a f e w th o u g h ts
o f m y o w n . A s I s e e it, th e u s e o f t h e v i d e o te s tim o n y p r o c e d u r e e m p lo y e d in th is
c a s e f ul l y co m p o r t e d w i th t he t e xt , hi s t or i c a l purpos e , a nd m ode r n unde r s t a ndi ng
o f th e C o n f

r o n ta tio n C la u s e . T h e m a jo r ity h a s e s s e n tia lly r e v is e d th e S ix th A m en d m en t o n i t s o w n b y erro n eo u sl y em p l o yi n g a t estt h atd o es n o tap p l y. A c c o r d in g ly , I r e s p e c tf

u lly d is s e n t. Th e ma j o r i ty r e s t s i t s o p i n i o n o n M a r y l a n d v . Cr a i g , 4 9 7 U
. S. 8 3 6 , 1 1 0 S. C t. 3 1 5 7 , 1 1 1 L . E d
. 2 d 6 6 6 ( 1 9 9 0 ) , a c a s e th a t f o ra t le a s t th r e e b a s ic r e a s o n s is
w hol l y i n ap p l i cab l e t o the f a c t s of thi s one . T he f

i r s ta nd m os ti m por t a nt di st i nct i on i s thatC ra i g i nv ol ved w i tness es w ho coul d h ave been ordere d t o t es t i fy i n cou rti n t he usual fa shi on , bu tfor c om pel l i ng pu bl i c policy re as on s w er e pe r m i t t e d t o t e s t i f

y outof the de f e nda n t ’ s p res e nc e . I n thi s c a s e , by c ont r a s t , t he
w i tne s s e s ( the n i n A us tr a l i a ) g en u i n el y w e r e una va i l a bl e t o a ppe a ri n c our tt o gi ve the i rt e s t i m o n y a nd c oul d notbe e i the rpe r s ua de d orc om pe l l e d t o a ppe a r . S e c ond, C r a i g w a s t a i l o r e d to a v e r y p a r tic u la rp r e d ic a m e n t: th a t o f a n a b u s e d c h ild w h o , if forc ed t o t ake the w i tness st and t o con fr on t h er abuser , w ou l d suffe r e m ot i on al trau m a t h atw o u l d co m p o u n d t h e h arm sh e h ad al read y su ffered an d al so i m p a ir he ra bi l i ty t o gi ve r e l i a bl e t e s t i m ony . F i na l l y , t he c ont e m por ane ous , r e a l
- t i m e , tw o-43

w ay vi de o p r oc e du r e us e d i n thi s c a s e w a s w ho l l y di f f e r e nti n n a tur e f

r om the onew ay vi deo p roce du re em pl oyed i n C ra i g. A tw o-w ay vi deocon fe re nce use d
c ont e m por a ne ous l y dur i ng t r i a l , unl i ke a one - w a y vi de oc onf e r e nc e , a l l ow s t he
w i tne s s t o s e e t h e j ur y a nd the de f e nda nt , thus a c hi e vi ng the C onf r ont a t i on C l a us e ’ s i m por t a ntgoa l of br i ngi n g t he a c c us e rf a c e t o f a c e w i th the a c c us e d a nd the f a c t f i nde r , a l be i tt hr ough t he m e di um of a t e l e vi s i on s c r e e n. M o r e o v e r , e v e n if

C r a ig c o u ld b e a d a p t e d to g o v e r n th e f a c ts o f th is c a s e , a prop e r a na l y s i s un de r Cr a i g w ou l d s t i l l no t f ol l ow the pa th the ma j or i t y has f ol l ow e d. I n f

i ndi ng t ha tt he pos s i bi l i ty of a R ul e 15 de pos i t i on s om e how m a de
r e m o te te s tim o n y im p r o p e ru n d e rC r a ig , th e m a jo r ity h a s m is a p p r e h e n d e d b o th R u le 1 5 a n d th e C o n f

r o n ta tio n C la u s e . I n d e e d , it h a s in e x p lic a b ly a c c o r d e d R u le 15 qu as i -c on st i tut i on al st atus as t he excl usi ve m ea ns of o b tain in g o vers ea s t es ti m on y. T he C ra i g t es t , prop er l y app l i ed, w ou l d fi nd thatthe t w o-w ay vi deo pr oc e dur e us e d he r e s a t i s f i e d the C onf

r ont a t i on C l a us e i n l i ght o f t h e ne c e s s i t y of ob t a i ni ng the ov e r s e a s w i tne s s e s ’ t e s t i mony a nd t he e xt e ns i ve me a s ur e s t he di s t r i ct
c o u r t to o k to p r e s e r v e th e e s s e n tia l e le m e n ts o f e f f e c tiv e c o n f

r o n t a t i o n . A ll in a ll, the pr oc e dur e t he di s tr i c tc our tf ol l ow e d i n thi s c a s e f ul l y com pl i e d w i th t he d e m a n d s o f

th e C o n f

r o n ta tio n C la u s e . Y a te s a n d P u s z ta i h a d e v e r y o p p o r tu n ity toThe de fenda nts have also argued that bec ause thedefendants were in Australia, they were 1 not subject to a penalty

for pe rjury

under U .S. law. Be causethe majority does not address the issue, Ia ssumefo r t

hepurp os e s o f my

a nalysis that thewi tne sse s’ oaths c arrie d th e po ssibil ity of a pe nalty f o r p e r j ur y. 44 c r o s s - e x a m in e th e w itn e s s e s a g a in s t th e m , a n d th o s e w itn e s s e s te s t i f i e d u n d e ro a th 1
an d u n d er t h e g aze o f t h e d efen d an t s, th e j u d g e an d t h e j u ry. I a g r e e w ith th e m a

jo r i t y t h a t th e o n ly q u e s tio n p r o p e r ly b e f o r e u s to d a y is
w he the rthe us e of

a c ont e m por a ne ous , t w o-w a y vi de o pr oc e dur e vi ol a t e d t he defe nd ant s’ rig h ts u nd erthe S i xt h A m endm entC on fr on t at i on C l ause . I a l so agre e thatw e have no o cc as i on t o v i si tot her que stio n s such as w het her the procedure
com pl i ed w i th R ul e 26 o f the F eder al R ul es of C ri m i nal P roce du re . I. T h e m aj o ri ty h o l d s th att h e t w o -w ay v i d eo t est i m o n y p ro ced u re i n th i s case vi ol a t e d the C onf

r ont a t i on C l a us e be c a us e i t f a i l e d the t e s t pos tul a t ed i n M ary l a nd
v. C ra i g, w here t he S u p re m e C ou rthel d t hata tri al courtm ay di spense w i th fac et o-fa ce i n-courtconfront at i on w hen i tfi nd s thatdo i ng so i s nec es sa ry t o a d v an ce an i m po rt antgo vernm enti nt er es tand t he re l i ab il it y of the t es t i m on y i s a ss ured thr ough ot he rm e a ns . I d. a t850, 110 S
. C t . a t3166. T hi s c a s e f a l l s out s i d e t he
na r r ow s c ope of

C r a i g. F ir s t , a n y d is c u s s io n o f M a r y la n d v . C r a ig m u s t b e g in w ith th e u n iq u e f a c ts of the c a s e . T he de f

e nda nt , t he ow ne ra nd ope r a t orof a k i n d erg a r t e n a nd45

pr e ki nde r ga r t en cen t er, w a s c ha r ge d w i th s e xua l l y a bus i ng a s i x- y e a r - ol d gi r l w ho h a d b e e n in h e rc a r e . T h e p r o s e c u tio n a s k e d th e tr ia l c o u r t to in v o k e a s ta te
cr i mi na l pr oc e du r e s t a tut e tha ta utho r i z e d o ne - w a y vi de o t e s t i mony by a l l e ged
v ic tim s o f

c h ild a b u s e w h e n “te s ti m o n y b y th e c h ild v ic tim in th e c o u r tr o o m w ill
r e s ul ti n t he c hi l d s uf

f e r i ng s e r i ous e m ot i ona l di s tr e s s su ch t h at the c hi l d c a nnot
r e a s ona bl y c om m uni c a t e . ” C r a i g, 497 U
. S
. a t841, 110 S
. C t . a t3161 ( quot i ng M d. C ts . & Jud. P roc. C od e. A nn . § 9 -102 (a )( 1)(i i ) ( 19 89 ))
. T he courtdet er m i ned t hat te s tif y in g liv e w o u ld d is tr e s s C r a ig ’s a lle g e d v ic tim s in e x a c tly th a t w a y , a n d it
a l l ow e d the nam ed vi c t i m a nd t hr e e m or e vi c t i m s t o t e s t i f y a ga i ns tC r a i g thr ough th e o n e - w a y v id e o p r o c e d u r e . C r a i g w a s c o n v ic te d , a n d s h e s o u g h t a n e w tr ia l,
ar gu i ng thatt h e fe dera l C on fr on t at i on C l ause gu ar ant ee d h era f ac e- t o-fa ce
c o u r tr o o m e n c o u n te rw ith h e ra c c u s e r s . T he S up re m e C ou rtre

j ec t ed C ra i g’ s a rgum ent , rul i ng t hat“ [a ] l tho ug h fac et o- f a c e c onf r ont a t i on f

or m s ‘ the c or e o f t he va l ue s f ur the r e d by t he C onf

r ont a t i on Cl a u s e ’
. . . i ti s n o tth e s i n e q u a n o n o f t he c onf r ont a t i on r i g h t . ” I d
. a t8 4 7 , 1 1 0 S. C t . a t316 4 (q u ot i ng C a l i f or ni a v. G r e e n, 399 U
. S
. 149, 157, 90 S
. C t . 1930, 19 34 –3 5, 26 L
. E d. 2d 48 9 (19 70 ))
. T he C ou rthel d t hat “if the S t at e m akes an
a de qua t e s how i ng of

ne c e s s i ty , t he s t a t e i nt e r e s ti n pr ot e c t i ng c hi l d w i tne s s e s f r om the tr a um a of

t e s t i f y i ng i n a c hi l d a bus e c ase i s s uf f i c i e nt l y i m por t a ntt o j us t i f y the46

use of a spec i al procedure thatperm i t s a chi l d w i tness i n such c as es t o t es t i fy at t r i a l a g a i n s ta d e f

e n d a n ti n th e a b s e n c e o f f a c e - t o - f a c e c o n f r o n t a t i o n w i th t he de f e nda nt . ” I d. a t855, 110 S
. C t . a t3169. C r a i g i s i n ap pl i c a bl e t o t hi s c a s e . T he m os ti m por t a ntdi s t i nc t i on i s t ha tt he chi l d w i tness es i n C ra i g w er e notun avai l abl e; the courtcoul d h ave c om p ell ed the m t o t e s t i f

y i n ope n c our ti n t he us ua l m a nne r . C r a i g doe s not ap p l y i n a
s i tua t i on w he r e t he w i tne s s e s s i m pl y ca nnotbe pr oduc e d f ora n i n- pe r s on appeara nce i n c ou rt , as w as the ca se w i th the tw o A ustra l i an w i tness es i n thi s c as e. I n d e e d , th e C r a ig d e c is io n its e lf d ir e c tly r e lie d o n a n u m b e ro f e a r lie rp r e c e d e n ts t h a tp e r mi t t e d a d mi s s i o n o f s t a t e me n t s b y u n a v a i l a b l e w i tn e s s e s w i th o u tr e q u i r i ng
e i the rf a c e - t o- f a c e c onf r ont a t i on o ra ny a ppl i c a t i on of the t e s te s t a bl i s he d i n C r a i g. I d. a t847–50, 110 S
. C t . at 3 1 6 4–66. F ore xa m pl e , i n M a t t ox v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 156 U
. S
. 237, 15 S
. C t . 337, 39 L
. E d. 409 ( 1895 ), the C our tpe r m i t t e d t he i ntr oduc t i on
o f t e s t i mo n y t w o d e c e a s e d w i tn e s s e s ha d g i v e n a ta p r i o rtr i a l
. Se e i d
. a t2 4 4 , 1 5 S. C t . a t340. I n O hi o v. R obe r t s , 448 U
. S
. 56, 100 S
. C t . 2531, 65 L
. E d
. 2 d 597 ( 1 9 8 0 ) , o v e r ru l e d i n p a r t on ot he r gr o u n d s b y Cr a w f o r d v . W a s h i n g t o n , 5 4 1 U
. S. 36 , 1 2 4 S. Ct
. 1 3 5 4 , 1 5 8 L. Ed
. 2 d 1 7 7 ( 2 0 0 4 ) , th e Co u r t a p p r o v e d the a dm i s s i on of t es t i m on y a n u navai l abl e w i tness had g i ven ata pre l i m i nary hear i ng . S ee i d. at 7 3

– 7 4 , 1 0 0 S. Ct
. a t2 5 4 2
- 4 3
. I n Bo u r j a i l y v . U n i t e d St a t e s , 483 U
. S
. 171 , 1 0 7 S.47

C t . 27 75 , 97 L
. E d. 2d 14 4 ( 19 87 ), the C ou rt perm i t t ed i nt rodu ct io n o f o u t-of-c ou rt
s ta te m en t s o f a co -co n sp i rat o r w h o refu sed t o t est i fy atth e d efen d an t ’ s tri a l,
c onc l u d i n g tha ta dm i s s i bi l i ty of s uc h t e s t i m ony w a s “ f i r m l y e nough r oot e d i n our j ur i s prude nc e ” t o pe r m i ta dm i s s i on de s p i t e t he de f e nda nt ’ s c onf

r ont a t i on r i ght
. I d.
a t183–84, 107 S
. C t . a t2782- 83. T he C ou rtt oo k t hese and o ther c as es t o m ea n t hat“ the w ord ‘ confro n te d, ’ as
us e d i n the C onf

r ont a t i on C l a us e , c a nn o ts i m pl y m e a n f a c e - t o- f a c e c onf r ont a t i on, f ort he C l a us e w oul d t he n, c ontr a r y t o ourc a s e s , pr ohi bi tthe a dm i s s i on of a ny
a c c us a t or y h ears a y s t a t e m e ntm a de by a n a bs e ntde c l a r a nt . ” C r a i g, 497 U
. S
. a t849, 11 0 S
. Ct
. a t31 65
. The Conf r on t a t i on Cl a us e mus tbe i nt e rpr e t e d i n a ma nner

“ se nsi t i ve t o i t s purpo se s a nd se n siti v e t o t he neces si t i es of t ri al and t he adversa ry pr oc e s s . ” I d. T he S upr e m e C our tm os tr e c e nt l y e xpounde d on the m e a ni ng of t he C onf r ont a t i on C l a us e i n C r a w f or d v. W a s hi ngt on, 541 U
. S
. 36, 124 S
. C t . 1354, 158 L
. E d. 2d 177 ( 2004)
. T h e d ef e nda nt , M i c ha e l C r a w f or d, w a s a c c us e d of
a s s a u lt a n d a tte m p te d m u r d e r . C r a w f o r d c la im e d h e h a d a c te d in s e lf
- d e f e n s e , b u t a statem en t h is w ife S ylv ia h ad m ad e t o p o li ce ap p ea re d to co n tr a d ic t C ra w fo rd ’s
s to r y . T h e s ta te m a r ita l p r iv ile g e p r e v e n te d th e p r o s e c u t i o n f r o m c o m p e llin g S y lv ia C ra w ford t o t es t i fy i n cou rtw i tho uther husband ’ s c on se nt , bu tt he courtp er m it te dThe majority sug g ests that Ihave inc orre ctly applied Craw ford to the fac ts of this case. 2 Majority Op. at 12 n.4. I

cite Craw ford, howe ver, precise ly beca use i t is one of many

Supreme Court c a se s a dd re ssi ngtheprob le m w e fa c e tod ay : what to do abo ut th e tes tim ony of a wi tne ss who is g enuinely unavailable , whether beca use the witness stands on fore ign soil and cannot becompelled to appea r, or because the witness could not be compe lled to testify beca use of a spousal privileg e. Indeed, Cra

wford is the most re cent of many Supreme Court ca ses s tandingfor the g eneral proposition that in-person conf rontation is not required when a witness is unavailable, so longas the witness is subject to adequate cross-examination. 48 the pr os e c ut i on t o i nt r oduc e a r e c or di ng of S y l vi a C r a w f or d’ s pol i ce i n t e r r oga t i on. C r a w f or d w a s c onvi c t e d, butthe S upr e m e C our tr e ve r s e d, f i ndi ng th at t he i nt r oduc t i on of

S y l vi a C r a w f

or d’ s s t a t e m e ntvi o l at e d the S i xth A m e ndm e nt C onf r ont a t i on C l a us e . A f

t e ra l e ngt hy di s c us s i on of the hi s t o ri cal r oot s of the
c onf r ont a t i on r e qui r e m e nta s a de vi c e f orpr e ve nt i ng tr i a l b y e x pa r t e e xa m i na t i on, the C our the l d t ha tpr i ort e s t i m oni a l s t a t e m e n t s a ga i ns ta c r i m i na l de f e nda ntc a n be adm i t t ed on l y i f the w i tness i s unavai l abl e t o app ea r i n cou rt an d the defendanthad
a pr i oroppor tuni ty t o c r os s - e xa m i ne the w i tne s s . I d. a t68, 124 S
. C t . a t1374. C r a w fo rd r e i nf

or c e d the l ongs t a ndi ng pr i nc i pl e tha tthe C onf r ont a t i on C l a us e i n e f

f e c t i m pos e s tw o pa r a l l e l s e t s of gr ound rul e s , one gove r n i n g t es t i m ony by w i tne s s e s w ho a r e a va i l a bl e t o a ppe a ri n c our ta nd one gove r ni ng t est i m ony by
w i tne s s e s w ho a r e una vai l ab l e. W he n a w i tne s s c a n be pr oduc e d i n c our t , s he 2
m ustt es t i fy i n p er so n in co u rt, i n t he pres ence of t he defendantand t he fa ct fi nd er , unl e s s a s uf

f i c i e nt l y c om pe l l i ng publ i c pol i c y i nt e r e s tj us t i f i e s di s pe ns i ng w i th t he f a c e - t o- f a c e c onf r ont a t i on r e qui r e m e ntunde rthe C r a i g t e s t . W he n a w i tne s s c a nnotIndeed, one way to state the holding of Crawf ord is that thereis no analogue to Craigin the 3 c onte xt of prior sw or

n tes tim ony . Craig de c lare s that whe n the wi tne ss is av a ila ble and thu s sh ou ld be brought to testify in the defendant’s prese nce, the require ment of in-per son confrontation can be dispensed with only

on a showingof nec essity and reliability . Crawf

ord holds that in the caseof prior testimonial statements, such a show ing of n ec es s ity and re liability

cannot substitute for the mode of c onfrontation the Constitution demand s , which is cross- examination. S ee Cra wford, 541 U.S. at 60-69, 124 S. Ct. at 1369–74 (over ruling Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 100 S. Ct . 2531, 65 L
. Ed. 2d 597 (1980), insofar as that case permitted admiss ion of prior testimonial statements based on “ indic ia of re lia bil ity” oth e r t

ha n c ro ss- e xami natio n, be c a us e c ro ss- e x ami nation

is t heon ly indicium of reliability

the Confrontation Clause de ems ac cepta ble). 49 be br o u g h tt o c o u r t , h o w e v e r , th e Co n f r o n t a t i o n Cl a u s e i s s a t i s f i e d a s l o n g a s t he d efen d an th as an ad eq u ate o p p o rtu n i ty t o cro ss-ex am i n e t h e w i tn ess. C ro sse xa m i n at i on i nde pe nde nt l y s a t i s f i e s the c onf

r ont a t i on r e qui r e m e nt ; the t e s t i m ony of una va i l a bl e w i tne s s e s c a n be i ntr oduc e d a ga i ns ta de f e nda ntw i thouta ny appl i ca t i on of t he C ra i g t es t . S ee C ra w ford, 54 1 U
. S
. at53 -54, 68 , 12 4 S
. C t . at 13 65 –6 6, 13 74 (not i ng tha t u n av ai l abi l i ty a nd cr oss- exam i nat i on ar e the key fa ct ors, w i tho utany m ent i on of C ra i g). 3 I n C r a w f

or d t he S upr e m e C our te m pha s i z e d tha tthe pr ope ri nt e rp ret at i on
a nd a ppl i cat i o n of

t he C onf

r ont a t i on C l a us e i s i m pos s i bl e w i thoutc ons i de r a t i on of the pu rpo se s it w as i nt ended t o ser ve and h ow the confront at i on re qu i re m enthas hi st ori ca l l y w orked i n p ra ct i ce . S ee C raw fo rd , 54 1 U
. S
. at42 -43, 12 4 S
. C t . at 1 3 5 9 ( “T h e C o n s titu tio n ’s te x t d o e s n o t a lo n e r e s o lv e th is c a s e . . . . W e m u s t . . . tur n t o the hi s t or i c a l ba c kgr ound of the C l a us e t o unde r s t a nd i t s m e a ni n g . ”)
. T he t es t i m on y of unavai l abl e w i tness es fa l l s w i thi n a t ra di t i on al exce pt i on t o t he usual50

r e qui r e m e ntof

i n-pe r s on c onf

r ont a t i on. S e e i d. a t54, 124 S
. C t . a t1365–66 ( s t a t i ng tha tthe c onf

r ont a t i on r e qui r e m e nti s s ubj e c tonl y t o “ thos e e xc e pt i ons
e s ta b lis h e d a t th e tim e o f th e f o u n d in g ,” b u t t h a t c h ie f a m o n g th o s e e x c e p tio n s is the excep t i on for per sons “ un avai l abl e t o t es t i fy ”) ; se e a l so M att ox , 15 6 U
. S
. at 24 3, 1 5 S . C t. at34 0 (“ M any of [ the C on st i tut i on ’ s] prov i si on s i n t he nature of a bi l l of r i ght s a r e s ubj e c tt o e xc e pt i ons , r e c o g n i z e d l ong be f or e the a dopt i on of

t he const i tut i on , and n oti nt er fe ri n g at all w i th i t s s pi ri t . S uch except i on s w er e ob vi ou sl y i nt ended t o b e r es pect ed. ”)
. W hy the C on fr on t at i on C l ause appl ies a sp ec i al rul e t o u navai l abl e w i tness es
m a y be puz z l i ng on the s ur f a c e , b u t t h e rat i ona l e be c om e s c l e a ronc e w e f ol l ow t he S up re m e C ou rt ’ s e xh ort at i on t o exam i ne t he hi st ori ca l root s of the C l ause . C om m on l aw advers ar ial p ro ce du re dem ands t hatcourt s per form t he ri tual of fa ce t o -face co n fro n t at i o n n o tj u stfo r t h e sak e o f s p e c ta c l e, b u tb ecau se i tp ro v i d es a
c o n v e n ie n t p r e c a u tio n a r y m e a s u r e f o r e n s u r in g th a t th e d e f e n d a n t h a s a f

u ll oppor tuni t y t o c ha l l e nge a w i tne s s ’ s s t a t e m e nt s . S e e C r a w f or d, 541 U
. S
. a t61, 124 S . C t. a t 1 3 7 0 ( “T h e C l a u s e ’ s u l t im a te g o a l is to e n s u r e r e lia b ility o f e v id e n c e . . . . [I ] t i s a pr oc e du r a l r a the rt ha n a s ub s t a nt i ve gu a r a nt e e . I tc omma nd s . . . t hat rel i ab i l i ty b e assessed i n a p art i cu l ar m an n er: b y t est i n g i n th e cru c ib le o f cro sse xa m i na t i on. ” )
. W he n i ti s pos s i bl e t o pr oduc e a w i tne s s f ortr i a l , the r e q u i rem ent51

of phy s i c a l pr e s e nc e w or ks a de qua t e l y , i f i m pe r f e c t l y , a s a m e a ns o f i ns ul a t i ng t he advers ar i al proces s f

rom cont am i nat i on by i nq ui si t ori al prac t i ce s. If i tw er e app l i ed in s itu a tio n s w h e r e th e w itn e s s c a n n o t b e p r o d u c e d a t tr ia l, h o w e v e r , th is r ig id pr oc e dur a l de v i ce w o ul d pe r f or m f a rm or e poor l y . B e c a us e the i n- pe r s on
c onfro n t at i o n rul e a s s um e s tha tt he w i tne s s i s a va i l a bl e , r i gi d a ppl i c a t i on of t he rul e w ou l d re su lti n excl usi on of al l st at em ent s of unavai l abl e w i tness es , w hi ch
w o u l d l e a d c o u r ts to d is c a r d to o m u c h r e lia b le e v id e n c e . L o n g a g o , th e C o u r t h e ld in M a tto x , f

o re x a m p le , th a t p r i o r s w o r n te s tim o n y b y d e c e a s e d w itn e s s e s s h o u ld be hel d adm i ss i bl e e ven t ho ug h t he w i tness es w ou l d n o t a p pearattri al
. T he C ou rt
w rot e: [ G ] e ne r a l ru l es o f l aw of thi s ki nd, how e ve rbe ne f i c e nti n the i rope r a t i on a nd va l ua bl e t o t he a c c us e d, m us toccasi o n al l y gi ve w a y t o c ons i de r a t i ons of publ i c pol i c y a nd the ne c e s s i t i e s of the c a se. . . . T he l a w i n i t s w i s dom decl ar es tha t the ri gh t s of the pu bl i c s hal l no tbe w ho l l y s ac ri fi ce d i n o rder tha ta n i nc i de nt a l be ne f i tm a y be pr e s e r ve d t o the a c c us e d. M a t t ox, 156 U
. S
. a t243, 15 S
. C t . a t340. T he s ol e purpos e of

the C r a i g t e s ti s t o de t e r m i ne w he n a c our tc a n r e l a x t he
r ig id r e q u ir e m e n t o f

f a c e - to - f a c e c o n f r o n ta tio n . B u t w h e n a w itn e s s is tru ly
una va i l a bl e , t he r e qui r e m e ntof f a c e - t o- f a c e c onf r ont a t i on doe s nota ppl y i n the fi rs tpl ac e, so the C ra i g t es tou gh tno tt o app l y e i ther.52

In th e seco n d p l ace, as Ju d g e T jo f la t s u g g est s, C rai g w as t ai l o red as a
narr ow sol ut i on t o an except i on al prob lem . I su spec tt hatt he S up re m e C ou rtnever i nt e nd e d l ow e rc ou r t s t o app l y Cr a i g o ut s i de t he pe c ul i a ra nd po i gn a ntf a c t s of that
c a s e : th e c a s e o f

a te r r o r iz e d c h ild f

o r w h o m a f

o r c e d e n c o u n te rw ith h e ra b u s e rin ope n c our tw oul d c om pound t he tr a um a s he h ad su ffer e d f r om the ve r y e ve nt s s he
w a s t o r e l a t e . T he C r a i g opi ni on i s r e pl e t e w i t h referenc e s t o the uni que c ont e xtof th e case. T h e C o u rt ’ s fi n al su m m ary o f i t s h o l d i n g sp o k e i n th e n arro w esto f t erm s: I n s um , w e c onc l ud e t h at w he r e ne c e s s a r y t o pr ot e c ta c hi l d w i tne s s f r om tr a um a t ha tw oul d be c a us e d by t e s t i f y i ng i n t h e p h ys i c a l pr e s e nc e of the d e f e n d a n t, a t le a s t w h e r e s u c h t r a u m a w o u ld im p a irth e c h ild ’s a b ility to com m un i ca t e, the C on fr on t at i on C l ause do es no tproh i bi tuse of a procedure th a t, d e s p ite th e a b s e n c e o f f a c e - to - f a c e c o n f r o n ta tio n , e n s u r e s th e r e lia b ility of the e vi de nc e by s ubj e c t i ng i tt o r i gor ous a dve r s ari al t est i ng a nd t he r e by pr e s e r ve s t he e s s e nc e of e f f e c t i ve c onf

r ont a t i on. C r a i g, 497 U
. S
. a t857, 100 S
. C t . a t3170. I ti s c l e a rt ha tC r a i g’ s r e l e va nc e e bbs a s the c i r c um s t a nc e s o f a c a s e - - t he t ec hn i qu e a ti ss ue, t he i dent i ty of the w i tness , and t he nature o f t he t es t i m on y - - m ove f a r the ra w a y f

r om t h e si tua t i on a tC r a i g’ s he a r t- - one - w a y vi de o t e s t i m ony b y a n a bus e d c hi l d a ga i ns the ra l l e ge d a bus e r . T he w i tne s s e s i n t hi s c a s e w e r e not
c h ild r e n o ro th e re s p e c ia lly v u ln e r a b l e p e r s o n s ; n o rw a s th e p r o s e c u tio n s e e k in g to
a voi d pr oduc i ng t he w i tne s s e s i n t he c our tr o o m b ecau se of the pos s i bi l i ty tha tt heThe trial tra nscript does not desc ribe the e x act de tails of the videoconf erencingsetup, but 4 the district court’s order

conditioned its approval of the video testimony

proce dure “upon the video te le c on ferenc e e qu ipm e nt b e ingpo sition e d s o that the wi tne ss is a bleto s e e theatto rn e y s, de fend ant, and jury and that those pa

rties are also a

ble to see thetestifying w itness.” 53 w i tne s s e s m i gh tbe i m pa i r e d by e m ot i ona l di s tr e s s , the da nge rof i nt i m i da t i on, or
a ny othe rf

a c t ort ha te ve n r e m ot e l y m i r r or s t he C r a i g s i tua t i on. T he t hi rd po w er ful di ff er ence fr om C ra i g i s thatt he use of a l i ve,
c o n t em p o ran eo u s, t w o -w ay v i d eo tran sm i ssi o n i n th i s case i s fu n d am en t a lly d i ff e r en tfro m th e o n e-w ay v i d eo t ran sm i ssi o n i n C rai g . In C rai g , t h e j u d g e, j u ry,
a nd de f e nda ntr e m a i ne d i n t he c our tr oom a nd w a t c he d e a c h c hi l d w i tne s s on a vi deo scr ee n as he or she t es t i fi ed fr om a r em ot e l ocat i on . T he chi l d, on the ot her ha nd, ha d no vi e w of

t he pe r s ons i n the c our tr oom - - i nde e d, t he v ery p u rpos e of the vi de o set u p w as t o pr e ve ntthe c hi l d f r om s e e i ng the de f

e nda ntw hi l e he ors he t e s t i f i e d. T he vi d e o l i n k i n th i s c a s e d e c i d e d l y h a d th e o p p o s i t e p u rp o s e : t o a l l ow a
c onf r ont a t i on be tw een the de f e nda nt s a nd t he i ra c c us e r s , nott o pr e ve ntone . T he
w i tness es had a ful l vi ew of t he defendant s a nd the j ury a s they t es t i fied
. T hat 4 vi s ua l c onne c t i on w a s e nough t o a c hi ev e “ the s tr ong s y m bol i c purpos e s e r ve d by
r e qui r i ng a dve r s e w i tne s s e s a ttr i a l t o t e s t i f y i n the a c c us e d’ s pr e s e nc e . ” C r a i g, 497 U
. S
. at84 7, 11 0 S
. C t . at31 64
. Q ui te sim p ly , the fa ctual el em ent s of thi s c as e - - tw o- w a y vi de o t e s t i m on y by a n ove r s e a s w i tne s s t e s t i f y i ng t o hi s bus i ne s s de a l i ngs54

w i th t he defendant s, or t he defendan t s’ use of hi s s i gn ature on d rug p re sc ri pt i on s - - ar e s o farre m ov ed fr om t he ori gi nal sc op e of C ra i g as t o render C ra i g i napp l i ca bl e. II. T he m a j o ri t y’ s e r r or s di d note nd w i th i t s de c i s i on t o us e the C r a i g t e s t ; t he
m a j or i ty a l s o a ppl i e d the t e s ti nc or r e c t l y . I n m y vi e w , a p ro p era ppl i c a t i on of t he C ra i g t es tw ou l d, i n any event , have det er m i ned t hatthe u se o f t he t w o-w ay vi deo procedure i n t hi s c as e s at i sf i ed t he C on fr on t at i on C l ause . E ve n i f the C r a i g t e s t c oul d be a da pt e d t o a ppl y t o the t est i m o n y of
w i tne s s e s w ho a r e be y on d the c our t ’ s s ubpoe na pow e r , i ti s c l e a rtha tthe
una va i l a bi l i ty of

a w i tne s s w oul d h av e t o be a f a c t ori n the c our t ’ s e va l ua t i on of
w het her a procedure satisfie d C ra i g’ s r equi re m entthatthe procedure be nece ss ar y t o ser ve an i m po rt antgo vernm enti nt er es t . T he C ra i g t es t ’ s bas el i ne sc enar i o t akes fo r gr a nt e d tha t the c hi l d w i tne s s w i l l gi ve he r t e s t i m ony i n s om e f a s hi on ; t h at i s, th e C r a ig n e c e s s ity te s t le a v e s to o n e s id e a n o p tio n t h a t w o u l d s im u lta n e o u s ly p ro tect th e c h il d fr o m th e tra u m a o f tes ti fy in g an d h o n o r th e d ef en d an t’ s confront at i on ri gh t s: si m pl y notas kin g the chi l d t o t es t i fy
. In t he ca se of an
una va i l a bl e w i tne s s , s e c ur i ng the t e s t i m ony i s i m pos s i b l e w i thoutde ny i ng t he de f e nda nta c our tr oom c onf r ont a t i on w i th the w i tne s s . T hus , pr ope r l y t r a ns l a t i ng the C ra i g t es tt o a si tuat i on i nv ol vi ng an un avai l abl e w it ness w ou l d requi re55

c o u n tin g th e v a lu e o f

o b ta in in g th e w itn e s s ’s te s tim o n y a s a n i m p o r t a n t p u b lic i n t erestw ei g h i n g i n fav o r o f p erm i t t in g te st i m o n y t h ro u g h al t ern at i v e m ean s. Im p o rt an tt est i m o n y fr o m a g en u i n el y u n av ai l ab l e w i tn ess w o u l d al m o stal w ays
s a t i s f y the C r a i g ne c e s s i ty t e s t , s o the a na l y s i s w oul d tur n on w he the rt he m e t hod f o rs e c u r in g th e w itn e s s ’s te s tim o n y w o u ld s a tis f y th e s e c o n d p a r t o f

th e C r a ig te s t,
w he the rt he a l t e r na t i ve pr oc e dur e s do e nough t o e ns ur e t he r e l i a bi l i ty of t he t est i m o n y. T he m aj ori ty’ s pri nci pal ar gu m enti n it s C ra i g anal ys i s i s thatthe t w o-w ay
v id e o p r o c e d u r e w a s n o t “ n e c e s s a r y ” w ith in th e m e a n in g o f C r a ig p r e c is e ly be c a us e t he di s tr i c tc our tc oul d ha ve or de r e d a R ul e 15 de pos i t i on i n w hi c h t he de f e nda nta nd the pr os e c ut i on w i tne s s e s w oul d ha ve m e tf a c e t o f a c e . I be l i e ve thi s l i ne of

t hi nki ng r e s t s on a thor ough m i s unde r s t a ndi ng of both t he C on fr on t at i on C l ause and t he R ul e 15 p roce du re . T o h ear th e m aj ori ty t el l i t , t he C on fr on t at i on C l ause i m po se s a si ng l e ones i z e - f i t s - a l l r e qui r e m en t : a de f e nda ntm us tbe a f

f or de d a f a c e - t o- f a c e c onf r ont a t i on
w i t h the w i tne s s e s a ga i ns thi m , a nd a ny f a c e - t o- f a c e m e e t i ng be tw e e n t he defe nd a nta nd t he pr os e c ut i on w i tne s s e s i s s uf f i c i e nt , w he the rthe me e t i ng t a kes p la c e in o p e n c o u r t o rin a n o th e rf o ru m s u c h a s a R u le 1 5 d e p o s itio n .56

T he m aj ori ty’ s c on ce pt i on of t he rul e i s bot h m ore p erm i ss i ve and m ore
r e s tr i c t i ve t ha n t he ru l e s the S upr e m e C our tha s a c tua l l y he l d t o a ppl y . A s I ha ve
s ugge st ed , t h e r e qui r e d c onf r ont a t i on pr oc e dur e di f f e r s de pe ndi ng on w he the rt he
w itn e s s i s a v a ila b le to a p p e a ra t tr ia l: W h e n a w itn e s s is a v a ila b le to a p p e a rin
c our t , a m e re f

a c e - t o- f a c e m e e t i ng be tw e e n the de f e nda nta nd the w i tne s s i s not
e nough; i ns t e a d, t he w i tness m u st c om e t o c our ta nd t e s t i f y i n t he pr e s e nc e of

t he d e f e n d a n t a n d th e f

a c tf in d e r . W h e n a w itn e s s is u n a v a ila b le to a p p e a rin c o u r t, a f a c e - to - f a c e m e e tin g is n o t r e q u ir e d a t a ll. W h en a w i tn ess i s av ai l ab l e fo r an i n -p erso n co u rtap p earan ce, th e id eal i s a f a c e - to - f a c e c o n f r o n ta tio n in o p e n c o u r t: th e C o n f r o n ta tio n C la u s e n o t o n ly dem ands t hatt he defendantbe pres entas the w i tness t es t i fi es ; i tal so dem ands t hat th e tr ie r o f

f a c t b e p r e s e n t. S e e , e .g ., C o y v . I o w a , 4 8 7 U .S . 1 0 1 2 , 1 0 2 1 , 1 0 8 S . C t. 27 9 8 , 2 8 0 3 , 1 0 1 L. Ed
. 2 d 8 5 7 ( 1 9 8 8 ) ( d e s c r i b i n g “ th e i r r e d u c i b l e l i t e r a l m e a ni ng of the C l a us e ” a s “ ‘ a r i ghtt o m e e t face t o f a c e a l l thos e w ho a ppe a ra nd gi ve
e vi de nc e a tt r i a l ’ ” ( q u o t i n g C al i for ni a v. G r e e n, 399 U
. S
. 149, 175, 90 S
. C t . 1930, 19 43 -44, 26 L
. E d. 2d 48 9 (19 70 ) ( H arlan , J ., co ncurri ng )) ); G re en, 39 9 U
. S
. at 15 8, 90 S. Ct
. a t19 35 ( de s c r i bi ng the thr e e va l ue s a tthe he a r tof the i n- c ourt conf r ont a t i on r e qui r e m e nt , the thi r d be i ng tha ti t“ pe r m i t s t he j ur y . . . t o obs e r ve th e d e m e a n o ro f

th e w itn e s s in m a k in g h is s ta te m e n t, t h u s a i d i n g th e ju r y in57

a s s e s s i ng hi s c r e di bi l i ty ” ) ; B a rbe rv. P a ge , 3 9 0 U
. S
. 7 1 9, 725, 88 S
. C t . 1318, 1322, 20 L
. E d. 2d 2 5 5 ( 1968) ( “ T he r i ghtt o c onf r ont a t i on . . . i nc l ude s both t he oppor t u n i t y t o c r os s - e xa m i ne a nd t he oc c a s i on f orthe j ur y t o w e i gh the de m e a nor
o f th e w i t n e s s . ” ) ; M a tto x , 1 5 6 U .S . a t 2 4 2

– 4 3 , 1 5 S . C t. a t 3 3 9 ( c o n f r o n ta tio n is d e s ig n e d to g iv e th e d e f e n d a n t th e o p p o r tu n i t y o f “c o m p e llin g [ th e w itn e s s ] to
s ta n d f a c e to f a c e w i t h t h e j u r y in o r d e rth a t th e y m a y lo o k a t h im , a n d ju d g e b y h is dem ea no r upo n t he st and and the m an n eri n w hi ch he gi ves hi s t es t i m on y w het her h e is w o r th y o f

b e lie f ” ) . H o w e v e r , if

a f a c e - to - f a c e m e e tin g is s im p ly im p o s s ib le b ecau se t h e w i tn ess i s tru l y u n av ai l ab l e, th e C o n fro n t at i o n C l au se i m p o ses a l ess
s tr i nge nt c onf

r ont a t i on r e qui r e m e nt : no f a c e - t o- f a c e m e e t i ng i s r e qui r e d, but t he
w i tne s s ’ s s t a t e m e nt s w i l l be a dm i s s i bl e onl y i f the de f e nda nt ha d a ro b u st
o p p o rtu n i ty t o cro ss-ex am i n e th e w i tn ess. C f. C raw fo rd , 5 4 1 U
. S
. at 6 8 , 1 2 4 S . C t.
a t 1 3 7 4 ( p r io rte s tim o n ia l s ta te m e n ts c a n b e a d m itte d a g a in s t a d e f e n d a n t o n ly if th e w i tn ess i s u n av ai l ab l e an d t h e d e f e n d an th ad a p ri o r o p p o rtu n i ty t o cro ssexam i ne t he w i tness ). W he n a c our te m pl oy s a R ul e 15 de pos i t i on, the de p o si t i o n doe s not funct i on as a m ea ns of ac hi evi ng t he prefe rr ed i de al of ful l fa ce -t o-fa ce
c onf r ont a t i on. A R ul e 15 de pos i t i on fal l s f a rs hor tof

tha ti de a l , be c a us e the tr i e rof facti s n o tp r e s en tatth e d ep o si t i o n . In st ead , th e R u l e 1 5 d ep o si t i o n fu n ct i o n s as aTh e re le va nt p or tio n o f t herulere a ds : 5 (c) Def

endant' s Presenc e. (1 ) De fend ant inCus tod y . T heof fi c e r who ha s c us tod

y of thede fend ant m

us t producethe def

endant at the deposition and keep the def endant in the wi tne ss' s p re se nc e duri ngthee xami natio n, un le ss t hede fend ant: (A) waives in writing the right to be present; or (B ) persists in disruptive conduct justifying e x clusion after beingwar

ned b y th e c o urtth atd i s rup t i v e c o n d u ctwi l lre s u l t i nth e d ef en d ant 's exclusion. (2) Def

endant No t in Cust ody . A def endant who is not in custody has the right upon reque st to be prese nt at the depositi o n, subject to any conditions imposed by the court. I f the g overnme nt tenders the de fenda nt's e xpenses a s provided in Rule 15(d) but the de fendant stil l fails to appea r, the defendant--a

bsent go od cause --waives both the right to appear and any ob je c tio n to thetakin gand

us e of thedepo sition

ba se d o n th at right. Fe d. R. Crim. P . 15(c)
. 58 fa ll back procedure for obt ai ni ng t es t i m on y w hen a w i tness i s unavai l abl e. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. D rogo ul , 1 F
. 3d 15 46 , 15 57 (11t h C i r. 19 9 3 ) (“ [T ] he on l y proper use of a depo si t i on i n a cr i m i nal ca se i s a s s ub st i tut e t es t i m on y w hen a m at er i al
w itn e s s is u n a v a ila b le f o rtr ia l.” ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) ) . S o a R u le 1 5 d e p o s itio n f a lls
s qua r e l y w i thi n the s e c ond c a t e gor y of pr oc e dur e s tha tne e d no t i n v o l ve f a c e - t ofa ce confront at i on bu tar e per m i ss i bl e onl y w hen t he w i tness i s unavai l abl e. T he m a j or i ty i s c or r e c ttha ta de f e nda nti s e nt i t l e d t o be pr e s e nta ta R u l e 15 depo si t i on , bu tt hatre qu i re m en t d o es no tappl y bec ause R ul e 15 h as a s peci al
conn ec t i on t o t he C on fr on t at i on C lau se. R ather, the re qu i re m entsi m pl y c om es f r om the t e r m s of

R ul e 1 5 i t s e l f

. F e d. R
. C r i m . P
. 15( c )
. I nde e d, i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. 559

S id d iq u i, 2 3 5 F .3 d 1 3 1 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) , a d e f e n d a n t a r g u e d b e f

o r e a p a n e l o f

th is C our ttha tt he C onf

r ont a t i on C l a us e ba rred a tr i a l c our tf r om a dm i t t i ng t e s t i m ony fr om tw o R u le 1 5 d eposi t i on s thatt he defendanthad m on i t ored on l y by t el epho ne. I d. a t1323–24. T he pa ne l s qua r e l y r e j ect e d the c ha l l e nge , f

i ndi ng tha te ve n though th e d e f e n d a n t h a d n o t b e e n p h y s ic a lly p r e s e n t a t th e d e p o s i t io n s , h e h a d b e e n f u lly
a b l e t o c r o s s - e x a mi n e t h e w i tn e s s e s r e mo t e l y . I d
. Th i s Co u r tr e a c h e d th e s a me
re sul ti n a si m i l arca se , U ni t ed S t at es v. M uel l er , 74 F
. 3d 11 5 2 , 1 15 6– 57 (11t h C i r. 19 96 ). T he m aj ori ty does notdeny t hatca se s l i ke S i dd i qu i a n d M uel l ercont ra di ct i t s c ha r a c t e r i z a t i on of

the r e l a t i ons hi p be tw e e n R ul e 15 and t he C onf r ont a t i on C l ause . T he m aj ori ty s i m pl y di sm i ss es such ca se s a s “ ra re ” a nd “ exce ptio n al
. ” I t do es no t , ho w ever , e ven h i ntati dent i fy i ng any di st i ng ui shi ng fe atures thatse t thos e c a s e s a pa r tf

r om t hi s one . N ordoe s i te xpl a i n w hy t he unus ua l c om bi na t i on
o f c ir c u m s t a n c e s in th is c a s e - - th e w itn e s s e s ’ lo c a tio n in A u s tr a lia , th e irr e f u s a l to
a ppe a ri n the U ni t e d S t at es, a nd the i rw i l l i ngne s s t o t e s t i f y l i ve a nd unde roa t h by
v id e o c o n f

e r e n c e - - c a n n o t s im ila r ly b e c a lle d “r a r e ” a n d “e x c e p tio n a l.” Iti s cl ear, t h en , t h atfo r t h e p u rp o ses o f C o n f r o n ta tio n C l au se an al ysi s, depo si t i on s und er R ul e 15 are i n n o w ay superi or t o t w o-w ay vi deocon fe re nce60

t es t i m on y, or i nd ee d, any ot he r m ea ns of ob t ai ni ng and p re se rvi ng t es t i m on y that
a f f or ds the de f

e nda nta n a de qua t e oppor tuni ty t o c r os s - e xa m i ne the w i tne s s . T he
m a j or i ty ’ s a s s e r t i on t ha ta R ul e 15 de pos i t i on ha s s om e s pe c i al c ons t i tut i ona l s t a tus i s s i m pl y w r ong. I f a ny thi ng, a t w o- w a y vi de oc onf e r e nc e dur i ng t ri al a l l ow s m or e e f f e c t i ve
cr oss- exam in atio n than a R ul e 15 d eposi t i on do es . T he vi deocon fe re nce procedure le ts th e f

a c tf in d e ro b s e r v e s u b tle tie s o f to n e , t i m i n g , b o d y la n g u a g e , a n d o v e r a ll de m e a nora s t he l a w y e ra s ks que s t i on s, a s the w i tne s s r e a c t s on he a r i ng the q u est i o n s, an d as t h e w i tn ess fo rm u l at es an d d el i v ers an s w e rs t o t h e q u est i o n s. I nde e d, the j ur y ’ s vi e w m ay w el l b e b e t t e rtha n w ha ti tc oul d ha ve ha d i n t he
c our tro o m . M or e ove r , w he n a w i tne s s t e s t i f i e s i n a l i ve vi de oc onf

e r e nc e , the j udge
c a n rul e on obj e c t i ons i m m e di a t e l y a nd othe r w i s e m a na ge the c our s e of qu es t i on i ng and t he cond uctof coun se l
. B ec au se th e v i deocon fe re nce t akes pl ac e at th e tim e o f trial, th e d ef en d an t an d d ef

en se co u n se l k n o w h o w th e p ro se cu ti o n ’s
ca se has devel op ed so fa r a nd ca n t ai l or t hei r c ross -e xam i nat i on ac cordi ng l y. In any e vent , t he j ury w i l l ce rt ai nl y be a bl e t o g l ea n m ore f rom a t elevi si on sc re en
c ont e m por a ne ous l y r e c or di ng t he e xa m i na t i on tha n i t c a n f r om d ep o si t i on te s tim o n y d r y ly r e a d f

r o m a tr a n s c r ip t.61

T he m a

j or i ty s ugge s t s tha tr e ga r dl ess of the a dva nt a ge s of
v i d e o c o n f

e r e n c i n g , th e d e f

e n d a n t s a p p e a rt o h a v e p r e f e r r e d th a tth e s e t wo
w i tne s s e s t e s t i f

y by R u l e 15 de pos i t i on. B utthe de f e nda nt s di d notr e que s tR ul e 15 d ep o siti o n s; th ey o n ly m en ti o n ed R u le 1 5 b y w ay o f o p p o sin g th e g o v er n m en t’ s
m ot i on t o p er m i tvi deo t es t i m on y. Indeed, t he defendant s m i gh t w ell h av e opp osed
m ot i ons by the gove r nm e ntt o a l l ow R ul e 15 d ep o s i t i ons ora dm i tt he de pos i t i ons i nt o e v i d e n c e . Th e Co n f r o n t a t i o n Cl a u s e i s n o t c o n c e r n e d w i th th e f u l l r a nge of t a c t i c a l a dva nt a ge s t ha tt he us e of one pr oc e dur e ora not he rm i ght co n fer on t he de f en se; i ti s c onc e r ne d onl y w i th t he de f e nda nt ’ s a bi l i ty t o c ha l l e nge t he prosec ut i on w i tness ’ s t es ti m o n y. M oreover, even i f the defendant s di d i n fac t p r e f e ra R u le 1 5 d e p o s itio n s p e c if ic a lly b e c a u s e it w o u ld p r o v id e a d v a n ta g e s in
cr oss- exam i nat i on , t he C on fr on t at i on C l ause st i l l w ou l d n otdem and t hatthe court
ac ce d e t o t he defendant s’ pref er ence . T he C on fr on t at i on C l ause gu ar ant ee s de f e nda nt s a f

ai r cr os s - e xa m i na t i on, nota n i de a l c r os s - e xa m i na t i on. S e e K e ntuc ky
v. S t i nc e r , 482 U
. S
. 730, 739, 107 S
. C t . 2658, 2664, 96 L
. E d
. 2 d 6 3 1 ( 1987) (“ [T ] h e C o n fro n t at i o n C l au se g u aran t ees o n l y ‘ an o p p o rtu n i ty fo r effecti v e cro sse x a m in a tio n , n o t c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n th a t is e f f e c tiv e in w h a te v e rw a y , a n d to
w ha t e ve re xt e nt , t h e d ef e ns e m i ghtw i s h. ’ ” ( quot i ng D e l a w a r e v. F e ns t e r e r , 474 U
. S
. 1 5 , 2 0 , 1 0 6 S
. C t . 2 9 2 , 2 9 4 , 8 8 L
. E d
. 2 d 1 5 (1 9 8 5 ) ( p e r c u r ia m ))). B ecau se62

t he vi d e o t e s t i mo n y p r o c e d u r e p r o v i d e d th e c r o s s - e x a mi n a t i o n th a tthe C onf r ont a t i on C l a us e r e qui r e s , the f a c tt ha tt he de f

e nda nt s m i ghtha ve pr e f e r r e d a R u le 1 5 d e p o s itio n is s im p ly ir r e le v a n t. T he se cond re qu i re m entC ra i g est abl i shed for d isp en si ng w i th i n-court
c onf r ont a t i on i s t ha tt he pr oc e dur e s us e d m us tc a r r y a de q u at e a s s ur a nc e s of
r e lia b ility . T h e tw o - w a y v i d e o p r o c e d u r e u s e d in th is c a s e c le a r ly m e t th is i m po rt antre qu i re m ent . T ho ug h i tdi d n otbri ng the w i tness es i nt o t he sa m e r oo m as the defendantand t he j ury, t he procedure provided al l the ot her e l em en t s thatar e the ha l l m a r ks of

t r a di t i ona l i n- c our tc onf r ont a t i on : t h e w i tne s s e s w e r e unde roa t h; the w i tness es and t he defendant s c ou l d see th e ju ry ; t he defendant s a nd the j ury
c oul d s e e the w i tne s ses ; a nd t he de f e nda nt s ha d a f

ul l oppor tuni ty t o di s put e the
w i tness es ’ t es t i m o ny throu gh “ cr oss- exam i nat i on , the ‘ grea t es tl egal engi ne ever i n v e n t e d f

o rth e d i s c o v e r y o f

tru t h
. ’ ” Ca l i f

o r n i a v . G r e e n , 3 9 9 U
. S. 1 4 9 , 1 5 8 , 9 0 S. C t . 19 30 , 19 35 , 26 L
. E d. 2d 48 9 (19 70 ) ( qu ot i ng 5 J. W i gm o re , E v i dence § 13 67 ). T h e C o u rti n C r a i g f ound t ha tone - w a y vi de o tr a ns m i s s i on i nc l ude d e nough of the “ el e m e nt s of

c onf r ont a t i on— oa th, c r os s - e xa m i na t i on, a nd obs e r va t i on of the
w i tne s s ’ de m e a no r— ” t o m a ke the t e s t i m ony “ r e l i a bl e a nd s ubj e c tt o r i gor ous
a dve r s a r i a l t e s t i ng i n a m a nne rf unc t i ona l l y e qui va l e ntt o tha ta cco rd ed l i ve , i n-63

pers on t es t i m on y. ” C ra i g, 49 7 U
. S
. at 85 1, 11 0 S
. C t . at 31 66
. S u re ly, t h e t w o-w ay
v id e o tr a n s m is s io n in th is c a s e m u s t h a v e b e e n e n o u g h to s a tis f y th e C r a ig te s t,
s i nc e i tpr ovi de d e ve r y thi ng the one - w a y vi de o pr oc e dur e pr ovi de d a nd
a d d itio n a l l y a llo w e d th e w itn e s s e s a v ie w o f th e r e m o te c o u r tr o o m . A g a in , in th is
c a s e t h e w itn e s s e s te s tif ie d u n d e ro a th ; th e d e f

e n d a n t, th e ju d g e , a n d th e ju r y c o u ld
s e e the w i tne s s e s a s t he y ga ve the i rt e s t i m ony ; a nd the w i tne s s e s c oul d s e e t he at t o rn eys, th e d efen d an t , an d th e j u ry. M o reo v e r , th e r e i s n o ev i d en ce t o su g g est tha tde f e c t s i n the vi de o tr a ns m i s s i on i m pa i r e d e f f e c t i ve c r os s - e xa m i n at i o n o f t he
w i tne s s e s . T he r e c or d s ugge s t s t ha tw ha t e ve rde f e c t s the r e w e r e i n t he tr a ns m i s s i on
w e r e pr om pt l y a ddr e s s e d. T he de f e nda nt s c oul d ha ve br oughtt he r e m a i ni ng de f e c t s, i f the r e w e r e a ny , t o t he c our t ’ s a t t e nt i on s o tha tthe c our tc oul d r e m e dy t he s i tu a t i o n a t th a t t i me . Ev e r y c o r e e l e me n t o f c o n f r o n t a t i o n w a s p r e s e n tt o t he
m ax i m u m ex t en tp o ssi b l e u n d er t h e ci rcu m st an ces. I n s h o r t , t h e o n ly d e v ic e th e C o n f r o n ta tio n C la u s e r e q u ir e s a c o u r t to a v a il its e lf o f is t h e p h ysi cal p ro d u ct i o n o f t h e w i tn ess i n th e co u rt ro o m . B u t , i f i tis si m pl y notpo ss i bl e t o p hysi ca l l y bri n g t he w i tness t o t he court room , t he courtthen
m a y r e s or tt o s ubs t i tut e m e thods
. T he C onf r ont a t i on C l a us e e xpr e s s e s no pref er ence bet w ee n su bst i tut e m etho ds thatpl ac e the defendanti n t he ph ys i ca l pr e s e nc e of

t he w i tne s s , s uc h a s R ul e 15 de pos i t i ons , a nd m et h o d s w he r e the64

d e f e n d a n t is n o t p h y s ic a lly p r e s e n t, s u c h a s t w o - w a y v id e o te s tim o n y . T h e b a s ic lim ita tio n th e C o n f

r o n ta tio n C la u s e im p o s e s o n a ll o f th e s e m e t h o d s , h o w e v e r , is tha t the de f

e nda nt m us t ha ve a m e a ni ngf ul oppor tuni ty t o c r os s - e xa m i ne t he
w i tne s s unde roa th be f

or e t he t e s t i m ony c a n be a dm i t t e d. F i na l l y , i n de t e r m i ni ng w h e the ra w i tne s s i s una va i l a bl e f orpurpos e s of

t he C o n f r o n ta tio n C la u s e , “[ t]h e u ltim a te q u e s tio n is w h e th e rth e w itn e s s is
una va i l a b l e d e s p i t e g o o d
- f a i th e f f o r t s u n d e r t a k e n p r i o rt o tr i a l t o l o c a t e a n d pr e s e nt tha tw i tne s s . ” O hi o v. R obert s, 4 4 8 U
. S
. 56, 74, 100 S
. C t . 2531, 2543, 65 L
. E d. 2d 597 ( 1980) , o v e r rul e d i n pa r ton othe rgr ounds by C r a w f or d v. W a s hi ngt on, 541 U
. S
. 36, 124 S
. C t . 1354, 1 5 8 L
. E d. 2d 177 ( 2004) ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S id d iq u i, 2 3 5 F .3 d 1 3 1 8 , 1 3 2 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly det er m i ned t hatt he w i tness es w er e bey on d t he subp oena po w erof t he U ni t ed S tates a n d w er e g en u in e ly u n w il li n g to ap p ea r a t trial d es p it e th e g o v er n m en t’ s ef fort s. C f. S i dd i qu i , 23 5 F
. 3d at13 24 (uph ol di ng a di stri ctco u rt’s fi nd i ng s that tw o w i tn esses o u t si d e t h e U n i t ed S t at es w ere u n av ai l ab l e fo r C o n fro n t at i o n C l au se p u rp o s e s )
. T h e w itn e s s e s w e r e g e n u in e ly u n a v a ila b le , s o th e irte s tim o n y f e ll out s i de the a m bi tof

M a r y l a nd v. C r a i g. M os tr e s pe c t f

ul l y, I b el i e ve tha tm y c ol l e a gue s ha ve l os ts i ghtof w ha tt he S i xt h A m e ndm e n t C onf r ont a t i on C l a us e w a s de s i gne d t o do: pr e ve ntt he65

gove r nm e ntf

r om ob t ai ni ng s um m a r y c onvi c t i ons ba s e d on e x pa r t e e xa m i na t i ons tha tthe de f

e nda nt ha d no oppor tuni ty t o oppos e thr ough the c r i t i c a l e ngi ne of
c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n . T h e m a jo r ity ’s h o ld in g h a s r e d u c e d th e C la u s e ’ s p r o te c tio n s to an abstra ctand st er i l e rul e thatst at es t hatun l es s th e d efendant and t he w i tness ca n be br oughtt o g e the ri n the s a m e r oom , the w i tne s s ’ s t e s t i m ony m us tbe e xc l ude d,
no m a t t e rw ha ts t e ps t he c our tt a ke s t o e ns ur e f a i ra nd e f

f e c t i ve c r os s - e xa m i na t i on. T he m a j o ri t y ’ s hol di ng t oda y di s s e r ve s t he C ons t i tut i on a nd s l i ght s t he p a ram o u n t p u b l i c i n t erest o f ad m i t t i n g co m p et en t an d rel i ab l e t est i m o n y in to
e v id e n c e in c r im in a l tr ia ls . I d is s e n t.