User talk:Cservices

Good Question
The case Nlu provides is a nice place to start, but it doesn't answer your query about "video" testimony by witnesses directly involved in a case and not protected by privilege. Your question actuallly has no firm national answer yet.

Many jurisdictions do allow videotaped testimony by witnesses (children, trauma victims, or "special protectees" -- people in the Witness Protection Program, undercover agents, or others in mortal danger.) Generally, the "right to confront" is satisfied by having defendant's counsel present at the testimony, which is taken as a deposition. Of course, the right to confront entails more than just the right to cross-examine with questions -- it also involves the right of defendant to have the demeanor of the witness evaluated in public and by the jury. For example, if a witness shifts in his seat, sweats, or gives other physical signs of being evasive, these are signs a defendant would want a jury to see. It is often held that this requirement is satisfied by videotape, but that is not always the case.

A few jurisdictions have begun to re-evaluate this allowance, however. Besides the right to question the witness, and the right to have his physical demeanor open to inspection, there is the consideration that an open trial (with its trappings of formality) impose an addition positive pressure on the witness to be truthful. While this has always been valued, I noted in the news recently that a new precedent in Florida (I think?) where a criminal conviction was overturned and remanded after the invalidation of videotaped testimony because this factor had not been considered by the trial judge.

In any event, as with many questions of evidence, this is a matter of a balancing test. The defendant's right to confront is counterpoised against the witness' right to reasonable safety and health. Different jurisdictions will have varied ways of evaluating these factors. Some have yet to allow videotaped testimony in any cases (having never confronted a suffiently compelling reason for it.) I don't of any jurisdictions where it is forbidden by law, but if there are a few out there, this prohibition would arise in the spirit of the federal constitutional right, and not as a mandate of it.

I hope that helps. Are you just interested, or are you researching this for some reason? Best wishes, Xoloz 14:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

and by the way...

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Xoloz 14:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

More on the right to confront
Hi,

The right-to-confront is a right of Defendant only; such defendant rights arise from a power inequity. The State is assumed (having the police power and other superior resources) to have an advantage in its capacity to assess witnesses for defendant. The Defendant's presence at trial is not strictly required by the Constitution, and may be excused (for illness or good cause) or the trial may be carried out in absentia if defendant flees unlawfully. Every defense attorney I know wants to put his client before a jury, though. This is always better; a human being in front of you (properly instructed by counsel to be civil, etc.) is simply better than a faceless description and empty chair. Even on race, a black person physically before the jury is better for the defense than an empty chair, with the concept of "faceless black person" alive in the jurors' minds. The race of the defendant, of course, cannot be kept secret from the jury, so a presence before them is better than none. Best wishes, Xoloz 21:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)