(800) 497-7618
Records
(888) 267-1200
Reporting

NEWS

Remote Video Depositions v. the Confrontation Clause

Constitutional scholars will enjoy watching the evolution of how courts apply the Confrontation Clause in situations where witnesses are deposed remotely in criminal cases.

In Williams v. State, 2012 Ind. App. Unpub. LEXIS 755 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), the Indiana Court of Appeals recently rejected a claim that a remote deposition was inadmissible hearsay based on Confrontation Clause grounds, even in a situation where a witness was “unavailable” for reasons that stretched the bounds of Rule 804(a).

NextGen’s view is that the Court created an undefined sliding scale, saying that the Confrontation Clause argument did not control in this instance because the importance of the witness was “slight” but that it may have greater power in other contexts. See Williams at *13. In this instance, we agree with the result, but we hope that the courts create a more transparent rule moving forward. Criminal defendants certainly enjoy a clear right to confront their accusers, and the parties need to understand when a remote deposition cannot substitute for a face-to-face deposition.

Contact Us

Reporting
(888) 267-1200
info@lexitasng.com
Records
(800) 497-7618
orders@lexitasng.com

Switch to Mobile Theme