Opinion ID: 760944
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Use of Two-Way Closed-Circuit Television Testimony

Text: 9 Gigante argues that the admission of Peter Savino's testimony via two-way, closed-circuit television testimony from a remote location violated his Sixth Amendment right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. U.S. Const. amend. VI. Gigante maintains that no compelling government interest justified the deprivation of his constitutional right to a face-to-face confrontation with Savino. 10 Preliminarily, we note the government's argument that Gigante waived his right to confront Savino. The government asserts that by refusing to attend a deposition of Savino pursuant to Rule 15, Fed.R.Crim.P., Gigante waived his right to a face-to-face confrontation. More fundamentally, the government argues that Gigante waived his confrontation rights through his own misconduct, with protracted attempts to delay his own trial by feigning incompetence. We need not resolve these questions relating to possible waiver, however, because Gigante's claim fails on the merits: under the circumstances of this case, the procedures by which Savino testified did not violate Gigante's confrontation rights. 11 Peter Savino, a former associate of the Genovese crime family, was a crucial witness against Gigante, providing direct testimony of his involvement in the Windows scheme. As a cooperator with the government since 1987, Savino was a participant in the Federal Witness Protection Program. At the time of Gigante's trial in 1997, Savino was in the final stages of an inoperable, fatal cancer, and was under medical supervision at an undisclosed location. 12 The government made an application for an order allowing Savino to testify via closed-circuit television due to his illness and concomitant infirmity. Judge Weinstein held a hearing to determine whether Savino was able to travel to New York to testify at Gigante's trial. At this hearing, an emergency medicine physician employed by the Federal Witness Protection Program testified that he had examined Savino and that it would be medically unsafe for [Savino] to travel to New York for testimony. Defense counsel cross-examined the government physician and then presented an oncologist of their own who testified that it would not be life-threatening for Savino to travel to New York. 13 Judge Weinstein held in a published opinion that [m]edical reports and testimony for the government and defendant fully supported the government's contention, by clear and convincing proof, that the witness could not appear in court. United States v. Gigante, 971 F.Supp. 755, 756 (E.D.N.Y.1997). Although Gigante attacks this determination, we review this factual finding for clear error. Judge Weinstein's holding was supported by evidence in the record and was not clearly erroneous. 14 Because of Savino's illness, Judge Weinstein permitted him to testify via two-way, closed-circuit television, basing his decision upon his inherent power under Fed.R.Crim.P. 2 and 57(b) to structure a criminal trial in a just manner. Gigante, 971 F.Supp. at 758-59. During his testimony, Savino was visible on video screens in the courtroom to the jury, defense counsel, Judge Weinstein and Gigante. Savino could see and hear defense counsel and other courtroom participants on a video screen at his remote location. 15 Gigante's argument that this procedure deprived him of his right to confront Savino amounts to the argument that his Sixth Amendment right could only be preserved by a face-to-face confrontation with Savino in the same room. We disagree. While the use of remote, closed-circuit television testimony must be carefully circumscribed, Judge Weinstein's order in this case adequately protected Gigante's confrontation rights. 16 The Supreme Court has declared that the Confrontation Clause guarantees the defendant a face-to-face meeting with witnesses appearing before the trier of fact. Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1016, 108 S.Ct. 2798, 101 L.Ed.2d 857 (1988). In Coy, the Court reversed the defendant's conviction for sexual assault after a 13-year-old alleged victim was permitted to testify out of sight of the defendant. See id. at 1022, 108 S.Ct. 2798. However, the right to face-to-face confrontation is not absolute; in Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 110 S.Ct. 3157, 111 L.Ed.2d 666 (1990), the Court held that one-way closed-circuit television testimony by a child witness in an abuse case may be permissible upon a case-specific finding of necessity. See id. at 857, 110 S.Ct. 3157. 17 The Supreme Court explained that [t]he central concern of the Confrontation Clause is to ensure the reliability of the evidence against a criminal defendant by subjecting it to rigorous testing in the context of an adversary proceeding before the trier of fact. Id. at 845, 110 S.Ct. 3157. The salutary effects of face-to-face confrontation include 1) the giving of testimony under oath; 2) the opportunity for cross-examination; 3) the ability of the fact-finder to observe demeanor evidence; and 4) the reduced risk that a witness will wrongfully implicate an innocent defendant when testifying in his presence. See id. at 845-46, 110 S.Ct. 3157. 18 The closed-circuit television procedure utilized for Savino's testimony preserved all of these characteristics of in-court testimony: Savino was sworn; he was subject to full cross-examination; he testified in full view of the jury, court, and defense counsel; and Savino gave this testimony under the eye of Gigante himself. 1 Gigante forfeited none of the constitutional protections of confrontation. 19 In Craig, the Supreme Court indicated that confrontation rights may be satisfied absent a physical, face-to-face confrontation at trial only where denial of such confrontation is necessary to further an important public policy and only where the reliability of the testimony is otherwise assured. Craig, 497 U.S. at 850, 110 S.Ct. 3157. Gigante seeks to hold the government to this standard, and challenges the government to articulate the important public policy that was furthered by Savino's testimony. However, the Supreme Court crafted this standard to constrain the use of one-way closed-circuit television, whereby the witness could not possibly view the defendant. Because Judge Weinstein employed a two-way system that preserved the face-to-face confrontation celebrated by Coy, it is not necessary to enforce the Craig standard in this case. 20 A more profitable comparison can be made to the Rule 15 deposition, which under the Federal Rules may be employed [w]henever due to exceptional circumstances of the case it is in the interest of justice that the testimony of a prospective witness of a party be taken and preserved for use at trial. Fed.R.Crim.P. 15(a). That testimony may then be used at trial as substantive evidence if the witness is unavailable. Fed.R.Crim.P. 15(e). Unavailability is defined by reference to Rule 804(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which includes situations in which a witness is unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of ... physical or mental illness or infirmity. Fed.R.Evid. 804(a)(4). 21 The decision to permit a deposition under Rule 15 rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed absent clear abuse of discretion. United States v. Johnpoll, 739 F.2d 702, 708 (2d Cir.1984) (internal citations omitted). It is well-settled that the 'exceptional circumstances' required to justify the deposition of a prospective witness are present if that witness's testimony is material to the case and if the witness is unavailable to appear at trial. Id. at 709. Under the circumstances of this case, Judge Weinstein could have admitted Savino's testimony pursuant to Rule 15 without offending the confrontation clause. See United States v. Salim, 855 F.2d 944, 954-55 (2d Cir.1988); Johnpoll, 739 F.2d at 710. 22 Judge Weinstein considered the utility of a Rule 15 deposition for preserving Savino's testimony, and noted that the government was able to make the threshold showing entitling it to a [Rule 15] deposition. Gigante, 971 F.Supp. at 758. Had Judge Weinstein allowed a deposition, this would not have been an abuse of discretion, given the medical evidence of Savino's poor health. However, due to the joint exigencies of Savino's secret location and Gigante's own ill health and inability to travel, Judge Weinstein concluded that deposing the witness is not appropriate, and that contemporaneous testimony via closed circuit televising affords greater protection of [Gigante's] confrontation rights than would a deposition. Id. at 758-59. 23 We agree that the closed-circuit presentation of Savino's testimony afforded greater protection of Gigante's confrontation rights than would have been provided by a Rule 15 deposition. It forced Savino to testify before the jury, and allowed them to judge his credibility through his demeanor and comportment; under Rule 15 practice, the bare transcript of Savino's deposition could have been admitted, which would have precluded any visual assessment of his demeanor. Closed-circuit testimony also allowed Gigante's attorney to weigh the impact of Savino's direct testimony on the jury as he crafted a cross-examination. 24 Closed-circuit television should not be considered a commonplace substitute for in-court testimony by a witness. There may well be intangible elements of the ordeal of testifying in a courtroom that are reduced or even eliminated by remote testimony. However, two-way closed-circuit television testimony does not necessarily violate the Sixth Amendment. Because this procedure may provide at least as great protection of confrontation rights as Rule 15, we decline to adopt a stricter standard for its use than the standard articulated by Rule 15. Upon a finding of exceptional circumstances, such as were found in this case, a trial court may allow a witness to testify via two-way closed-circuit television when this furthers the interest of justice. 25 The facts of Savino's fatal illness and participation in the Federal Witness Protection Program, coupled with Gigante's own inability to participate in a distant deposition, satisfy this exceptional circumstances requirement, and Judge Weinstein did not abuse his discretion by allowing Savino to testify in this manner. Savino's testimony did not deprive Gigante of his right to confront his accuser under the Sixth Amendment.