108 Iowa L. Rev. 1369 (2023)
Abstract
The Confrontation Clause protects a criminal defendant’s right to confront adverse witnesses against them. The Supreme Court developed how remote testimony affects a defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause located in the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution. Maryland v. Craig created a two-part test for courts to determine whether one-way closed-circuit television testimony violates a defendant’s rights. Namely (1) whether the stated interest is necessary to further an important public policy and (2) whether the reliability of the testimony is otherwise assured. Over time, federal and state courts extended the Craig test to two-way remote testimony. With the recent rise in remote testimony, courts struggle with analyzing illness as a sufficient public policy under Craig. This Note will propose modification to Craig that expands the necessity and reliability prongs and incorporates the following factors: (1) whether in-person testimony adversely affects the witness, (2) whether the witness can travel despite the adverse effect, and (3) whether the court has an alternative to remote testimony.