Videoconferencing has skyrocketed in popularity because of the pandemic. Just check Zoom’s stock. Seemingly overnight, what used to be an irregular method of business communication has become commonplace.
Courts have embraced the craze, frequently holding hearings and other meetings by video. But there are limits to what a court can permissibly accomplish by video. While some observers have suggested videoconferencing is a potential solution to the problem of requiring live, in-person testimony during a pandemic spread by airborne particles, the Supreme Court of Michigan held in a recent criminal appeal that “two-way, interactive video testimony violated the defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights.”[1]
U.S. Supreme Court Precedent on the Confrontation Clause
The post The Right to Confrontation in an Era of Videoconferences appeared first on Trial Attorney Blog.