People of Guam v. Stefan Keanu Camacho

2025 Guam 16

• Court: Supreme Court of Guam
• Decided: December 30, 2025
• Docket: CRA25-008
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

PEOPLE OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

STEFAN KEANU CAMACHO, Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court Case No. CRA25-008 Superior Court Case No. CF0019-24

OPINION

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam Argued and submitted on May 30, 2025 Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Defendant-Appellant Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellee Stephen P. Hattori, Esq. Emily L.A. Rees, Esq. Public Defender Assistant Attorney General Public Defender Service Corporation Office of the Attorney General 779 Route 4 Appellate & Writing Division Sinajana, GU 96910 134 W. Soledad Ave., Ste. 412 Hagåtña, GU 96910 People v. Camacho, 2025 Guam 16, Opinion Page 2 of 36

BEFORE: ROBERT J. TORRES, Chief Justice; F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Associate Justice; and KATHERINE A. MARAMAN, Associate Justice.

CARBULLIDO, J.:

[1] Defendant-Appellant Stefan Keanu Camacho appeals a decision of the Superior Court

granting the People’s request to allow a government witness to testify remotely at his murder trial.

Guam’s former Medical Examiner Dr. Jeffrey Nine performed the autopsy of the alleged victim in

this case. Dr. Nine testified that he lives in Ohio and that, given the medical conditions of his wife

and child, he cannot travel. Camacho argues that the trial court’s decision violates his Sixth

Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him.

[2] The right to confrontation must be zealously protected, but the Sixth Amendment does not

categorically require in-person, face-to-face confrontation in all cases. The trial court applied the

correct legal standard. We narrowly hold that upon the unique facts on the record before us, Dr.

Nine’s remote testimony is necessary to further an important public policy that outweighs

Camacho’s right to in-person, face-to-face confrontation. We affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[3] Camacho is charged with Complicity to Commit Aggravated Murder, among other

offenses. Dr. Nine is the former Medical Examiner of Guam, who performed the autopsy of the

alleged victim.1 Dr. Nine has since relocated to Columbus, Ohio.

[4] The People filed a motion for relief, requesting that either Dr. Nine be allowed to testify at

trial remotely via two-way video conferencing, or a continuance be granted so that Dr. Nine could

be deposed. The People argued that Dr. Nine is uniquely able to testify about the deceased’s cause

of death because he performed the autopsy alone, and it was not recorded. The People supported

1 The People represent that Dr. Nine has performed autopsies in over a dozen other matters currently pending before the Superior Court. People v. Camacho, 2025 Guam 16, Opinion Page 3 of 36

their motion with a sworn declaration from Dr. Nine, in which he claimed that he cannot travel to

Guam to testify because he is a caretaker for his wife and child, who have serious health issues.

Dr. Nine elaborated that his wife and child “require treatment several times a week for their

medical conditions and they require my continual assistance while they undergo their respective

medical care and treatment,” and that his traveling to Guam would “place the medical care and

treatment of my wife and child in life threatening peril.” Record on Appeal (“RA”), tab 57 at 2

(Decl. Dr. Nine, Jan. 27, 2025).

[5] Camacho opposed the motion, expressing concerns that “the failure to produce Dr. Nine in

person would lead to a violation of [the] Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses.” RA, tab

63 at 2 (Dec. & Order, Feb. 25, 2025) (alteration in original) (quoting RA, tab 58 (Opp’n Mot.,

Feb. 10, 2025)). Camacho also argued that videoconferencing could distort nonverbal cues and

that videoconference technology cannot replace eye contact among the witness, defendant, and

jurors.

[6] The trial court issued an order stating that “[b]ased on the current filings from the parties

and the Court’s own research, the Court believes it is necessary to hold an evidentiary hearing on

the issue.” RA, tab 60 at 1 (Order for Evid. Hr’g, Feb. 19, 2025). The trial court’s order also

summarized the law governing remote testimony and depositions, requesting that the parties

address “how this law applies to this case at the evidentiary hearing.” Id. at 2. The court observed

that:

The last time [remote testimony] was addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court was in 1990, in Maryland v. Craig. According to the Supreme Court, “though we reaffirm the importance of face-to-face confrontation with witnesses appearing at trial, we cannot say that such confrontation is an indispensable element of the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of the right to confront one’s accusers.” The Court goes on to say that this “does not, of course, mean that it may easily be dispensed with.” In United States v. Yates, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal put forth the following test for when face to face confrontation may be dispensable: “The court generally must: (1) hold an evidentiary hearing and find (a) that the denial of People v. Camacho, 2025 Guam 16, Opinion Page 4 of 36

physical, face-to-face confrontation at trial is necessary to further an important public policy and (b) that the reliability of the testimony is otherwise assured.” To allow for any testimony that is not done face-to-face, the trial court must find that it is “essential to deny the defendant his right to face-to-face physical confrontation in order to serve the interest the government asserts.”

Id. at 2-3 (first quoting Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 845 (1990); and then quoting United

States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1315 (11th Cir. 2006) (en banc)). The court also observed that 8

GCA § 70.55 requires the presence of a defendant at a deposition and requested that the parties

address whether the presence of Camacho at the deposition would be feasible.

[7] Dr. Nine testified at the evidentiary hearing on the motion. The hearing was attended by

attorneys who represented three different defendants in cases where Dr. Nine had performed an

autopsy. Dr. Nine testified that he could not leave his family to attend multiple trials in Guam

because of their serious medical conditions. Information regarding his wife and son’s diagnoses

was submitted to the trial court for in camera review. Dr. Nine testified that his wife requires

“daily high-dose medications and weekly injections” and that the high-dose medications “affect[]

her ability to do things outside of the home because it makes her severely immunodepressed and

immunocompromised, so she can catch infections very easily.” Transcript (“Tr.”) at 7 (Mot. Hr’g,

Feb. 24, 2025). He further testified that he administers her weekly injections. Id. Dr. Nine testified

that because of his wife’s medical condition, “she does not drive a vehicle, . . . and she does not

go to . . . places.” Id. at 7-8. He also stated that his wife’s condition affects her vision: “It causes

blurriness and times where she can’t see, but it has not yet progressed to permanent blindness . . .

.” Id. at 8.

[8] Dr. Nine further testified that his son “requires 24-hour care because of his quadriplegia

and severe cerebral palsy.” Id. at 9. Dr. Nine explained that his son:

is a Guam native. He’s of Chamorro origin, or ancestry, and he had very severe medical conditions that required 24-hour care. In May of 2023, we were meeting with the Child Services Division to do some foster care, and they asked us if we People v. Camacho, 2025 Guam 16, Opinion Page 5 of 36

would take this child, who had nowhere to go. My wife is a nurse, me, being a physician, we decided to take him, and we took him into our home on July of 2023. He had very severe medical conditions that we had to [sic] difficulty treating on the island. He eventually was hospitalized for almost two months in February and March of 2024, and at that time we realized he – we did not – we could not get the medical care and the medications that he needed on Guam.

Id. at 6-7. Dr. Nine explained that in addition to 24-hour care, his son “requires three therapy

sessions every week, like, physical therapy and occupational therapy and speech therapy.” Id. at

9. Dr. Nine testified that his wife takes care of their son “while I’m at work, and then I take care

of him the rest of the time.” Id. at 15. He testified that they had no family or close friends in Ohio

who could help to care for his wife and son in his absence. See id. at 8.

[9] On cross-examination, Dr. Nine stated that after he had moved to Ohio (but was still under

contract as the medical examiner), he had traveled to Guam three times “to do autopsies under my

own schedule” which was “essentially, over weekends.” Id. at 11. Dr. Nine also stated he believed

he would not be reimbursed for his travel or expenses and may have to go into debt to attend trials

in person. Id. at 12, 14. On redirect, Dr. Nine clarified that his decisions about traveling to Guam

for trial were based “[b]y far, a hundred percent . . . [on the] medical circumstances” of his wife

and child. Id. at 14. He testified that “[t]he financial concerns I could eventually work out. I’d

prefer not to go into debt, and try to compensate myself for that travel, . . . but by far the medical

circumstances are the reason.” Id. Dr. Nine did not explicitly state he would resist a subpoena but

testified that he “would certainly try to find other ways to get around active traveling.” Id. at 9.

[10] The trial court ultimately granted the People’s motion for remote testimony. The trial court

concluded that the People had made the requisite showing under Craig that taking Dr. Nine’s

remote testimony is necessary to further an important state interest and that the testimony would

be reliable. Relying on a California Court of Appeal decision, the trial court found that “ensuring

the safety of Dr. Nine’s wife and child qualifies as an important public policy, particularly given People v. Camacho, 2025 Guam 16, Opinion Page 6 of 36

the large distance between Guam and Ohio and the unique circumstances requiring his physical

presence.” RA, tab 63 at 5-6 (Dec. & Order) (citing People v. Coulthard, 307 Cal. Rptr. 3d 383,

411 (Ct. App. 2023)). The trial court further found that “the People have met their burden of

ensuring that testimony received via live, two-way, audio-video telecommunication is reliable.

This procedure preserves most, if not all elements critical to the confrontation clause, which have

a combined effect of ensuring reliability of the evidence.” Id. at 7. The trial court found that

remote testimony “constitutes the best scenario for meeting the needs and rights of all parties” and

rejected a deposition because of “the significant delays that would be associated with a deposition

taking place in Ohio.” Id. at 6-7.

[11] Camacho filed a petition for permission to file an interlocutory appeal challenging the trial

court’s order on Sixth Amendment grounds. The People did not oppose the petition, which this

court granted.

II. JURISDICTION

[12] This court has the discretion to grant permission to file an interlocutory appeal in a criminal

case under 7 GCA § 3108(b). See People v. Lau, 2007 Guam 4 ¶ 3 (citing 7 GCA § 3108(b)(1),

(3) (2005)); see also 48 U.S.C.A. § 1424-1(a)(2) (Westlaw through Pub. L. 119-59 (2025)); 7

GCA § 3107 (2005). This court previously granted Camacho’s unopposed petition for permission

to appeal because it presented a question of law that will “clarify further proceedings” in the

litigation and “clarify issues of general importance in the administration of justice.” Order at 1

(Apr. 4, 2025).

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

[13] “We review evidentiary rulings implicating constitutional rights, including the right to

confront witnesses, de novo.” People v. Cepeda, 2021 Guam 9 ¶ 21. People v. Camacho, 2025 Guam 16, Opinion Page 7 of 36

IV. ANALYSIS

[14] Camacho argues that “[s]etting aside the 6th Amendment right of a defendant to have a

physical, face-to-face confrontation at a trial must require more than a mere showing of

inconvenience to a witness” and requests that this court determine that “allowing Dr. Nine’s

testimony via videoconference violates the Confrontation Clause of both the Constitution and the

Organic Act of Guam.” Appellant’s Br. at 17 (Apr. 11, 2025).2 The People respond that the right

to confrontation “must ‘be interpreted in the context of the necessities of trial and the adversary

process’” and that “the right to face-to-face confrontation is not absolute.” Appellee’s Br. at 3

(May 7, 2025) (quoting Craig, 497 U.S. at 850). They argue that the U.S. Supreme Court’s

landmark decision in Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990), governs the admissibility of remote,

two-way video testimony of an adult witness introduced against a criminal defendant. Appellee’s

Br. at 2. We agree with Camacho that showing mere inconvenience to a witness is insufficient to

deny a criminal defendant the right to in-person, face-to-face confrontation. See Appellant’s Br.

at 17. However, that is not the end of the analysis.

[15] “The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause provides that ‘[i]n all criminal

prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him

. . . .’” People v. Kotto, 2020 Guam 4 ¶ 15 (alterations in original) (quoting U.S. Const. amend.

VI). “The Organic Act of Guam both specifically incorporates the Sixth Amendment’s

Confrontation Clause, and provides an independent right for criminal defendants ‘to be confronted

with the witnesses against him.’” Id. (quoting 48 U.S.C.A. § 1421b(g)) (citing 48 U.S.C.A. §

1421b(u)).

2 Beyond passing references to the Organic Act, Camacho does not make any arguments that the remote testimony in this case is inorganic on independent grounds, so we address only the Sixth Amendment. People v. Camacho, 2025 Guam 16, Opinion Page 8 of 36

[16] As a threshold matter, we must decide whether the Supreme Court’s Craig decision is the

correct standard to apply when the People seek to have an adult witness testify via two-way video.

We join the majority of jurisdictions that have found Craig applies to scenarios such as this and

adopt Craig as the correct legal standard.

[17] Applying Craig, we must then decide whether the People met their burden of showing, and

the trial court made the requisite findings, that the remote testimony is necessary to further an

important public policy and is otherwise reliable. See Craig, 497 U.S. at 855-56. We rule on the

unique facts in the record before us and hold that the People have met their burden and the trial

court’s findings are adequate.3

A. Craig Remains Good Law and Applies to Two-Way Video Testimony of an Adult

[18] Camacho’s opening brief correctly identifies that applying Craig here would extend its

holding beyond child witnesses. Appellant’s Br. at 11-12. The People also acknowledge that

adopting Craig—which “dealt with one-way, closed-circuit testimony of a child witness accusing

the defendant of sexual abuse”—would technically be an expansion beyond that case’s holding;

but they argue, “A broader application of the Craig standard is appropriate to ensure crucial

evidence at trial.” Appellee’s Br. at 2, 4. The People further argue that “[w]hile Guam has yet to

apply the Craig standard to cases beyond child witnesses in sexual abuse cases, . . . doing so is

consistent with this Court’s precedent.” Id. at 8. However, neither party’s brief discusses in much

3 Craig requires a “case-specific” determination in all cases. Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 838 (1990). Although we affirm the trial court’s decision to allow Dr. Nine to testify remotely at Camacho’s trial, we do not hold that he will automatically be permitted to testify remotely in all future cases where he performed an autopsy. Every time the People seek to have a witness testify remotely at trial over a defendant’s objection, a hearing is required. And every time, the People bear the burden of showing denial of in-person, face-to-face confrontation is necessary to further an important public policy. Nothing in our opinion should be construed as preventing defendants from vindicating their Sixth Amendment rights or relieving the People of their burden in future cases—including cases where Dr. Nine is expected to testify. Our opinion identifies several public policy concerns to consider in these future cases, and circumstances may change. People v. Camacho, 2025 Guam 16, Opinion Page 9 of 36

detail the possibility that Craig is inconsistent with subsequent Sixth Amendment jurisprudence

of the U.S. Supreme Court: Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).4

[19] Generally, under the Sixth Amendment, “defendants have the right to be physically present

and face-to-face with witnesses testifying against them.” People v. Morales, 2022 Guam 1 ¶ 15

(citing Craig, 497 U.S. at 849-50); see also State v. Rogerson, 855 N.W.2d 495, 498 (Iowa 2014)

(“Courts have long construed the Confrontation Clause to ‘guarantee [] the defendant a face-to-

face meeting with witnesses appearing before the trier of fact.’” (alteration in original) (quoting

Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1016 (1988))). However, as this court has acknowledged, a

“defendant’s right to confrontation is not absolute.” Morales, 2022 Guam 1 ¶ 15; see also

Rogerson, 855 N.W.2d at 499 (“[T]he Supreme Court has clarified that while the Confrontation

Clause does express a strong preference for face-to-face confrontation, the latter is not an absolute

constitutional requirement.” (citing Craig, 497 U.S. at 849-50)). This court has opined that the

fact “[t]hat the face-to-face confrontation requirement is not absolute does not, of course, mean

that it may easily be dispensed with.” People v. Callahan, 2018 Guam 17 ¶ 22 (quoting Craig,

497 U.S. at 850).

[20] The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Craig dealt with the testimony of a child

complaining witness in a sexual abuse case, given via a one-way closed-circuit television system

where the witness could not see or hear the defendant. Craig, 497 U.S. at 840-42. Craig

established a two-prong test to determine when face-to-face confrontation with a child victim of

alleged sexual abuse may be excused and one-way, closed-circuit television testimony used in its

place: the government must prove: (1) that the “denial of [face-to-face] confrontation is necessary

to further an important public policy,” and (2) that “the reliability of the testimony is otherwise

4 However, Crawford was discussed more fully at oral argument. People v. Camacho, 2025 Guam 16, Opinion Page 10 of 36

assured.” Id. at 850. The court emphasized that “[t]he requisite finding of necessity must of course

be a case-specific one,” and that, as such, “[t]he trial court must hear evidence” before determining

whether the standard is met. Id. at 855. The Court identified four factors to determine reliability

under the second prong of this test: (1) physical presence, (2) whether the testimony was

taken under oath, (3) whether the accused had an opportunity to cross-examine, and (4) whether

the jury could observe the witness’s demeanor. Id. at 845-46. The Court held that the first prong

of the test was satisfied because protecting minor victims of sex crimes was a compelling state

interest. Id. at 838. The Court also concluded that three of the four reliability factors—all but

physical presence—supported finding the one-way video setup reliable and therefore

constitutional. Id. at 857.

[21] Despite the increase in remote testimony during the COVID-19 pandemic, Craig was the

last time the Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of remote video testimony. E.g., Bragg

v. State, 390 So. 3d 578, 583 (Ala. Crim. App. 2023) (“Since deciding Craig, the Supreme Court

has not further examined the constitutionality of remote video testimony or considered new types

of technology available to facilitate remote testimony . . . .” (quoting Rogerson, 855 N.W.2d at

499-500)), cert. denied sub nom. Ex parte Bragg, 390 So. 3d 594 (Ala. 2023). At least one sitting

Supreme Court Justice has expressed doubts about Craig’s application to two-way video:

This case presents the question whether petitioner’s rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, were violated when the State introduced testimony at his trial via a two-way video that enabled the testifying witness to see and respond to those in the courtroom, and vice versa. The question is an important one, and it is not obviously answered by Maryland v. Craig . . . .

Wrotten v. New York, 560 U.S. 959 (2010) (Sotomayor, J., respecting denial of certiorari). But

nevertheless, Craig remains “[t]he seminal Supreme Court case on the use of a video medium in

lieu of physical confrontation . . . .” White v. State, 116 A.3d 520, 542 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2015). People v. Camacho, 2025 Guam 16, Opinion Page 11 of 36

[22] Upon initial review, the trial court’s decision seems to be a straightforward application of

Craig to the facts here. However, further consideration reveals two non-trivial threshold issues.

First, many courts have expressed sincere doubt that Craig remains good law. Second, even if

Craig has not been overruled, it is not obvious that it should apply to two-way video because that

case arose in the context of one-way video testimony of a child victim.

1. Craig remains good law until explicitly overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court

[23] Craig was a 5-4 decision where Justice Scalia wrote a blistering dissent: “Seldom has this

Court failed so conspicuously to sustain a categorical guarantee of the Constitution against the tide

of prevailing current opinion.” Craig, 497 U.S. at 860 (Scalia, J., dissenting). The dissent states

that “the Confrontation Clause does not guarantee reliable evidence; it guarantees specific trial

procedures that were thought to assure reliable evidence, undeniably among which was ‘face-to-

face’ confrontation.” Id. at 862. Justice Scalia was sharply critical of the majority’s approach:

According to the Court, “we cannot say that [face-to-face] confrontation [with witnesses appearing at trial] is an indispensable element of the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of the right to confront one’s accusers.” That is rather like saying “we cannot say that being tried before a jury is an indispensable element of the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of the right to jury trial.” The Court makes the impossible plausible by recharacterizing the Confrontation Clause, so that confrontation (redesignated “face-to-face confrontation”) becomes only one of many “elements of confrontation.” The reasoning is as follows: The Confrontation Clause guarantees not only what it explicitly provides for—“face-to-face” confrontation—but also implied and collateral rights such as cross-examination, oath, and observation of demeanor (TRUE); the purpose of this entire cluster of rights is to ensure the reliability of evidence (TRUE); the Maryland procedure preserves the implied and collateral rights (TRUE), which adequately ensure the reliability of evidence (perhaps TRUE); therefore the Confrontation Clause is not violated by denying what it explicitly provides for—“face-to-face” confrontation (unquestionably FALSE). This reasoning abstracts from the right to its purposes, and then eliminates the right. . . . Whatever else it may mean in addition, the defendant’s constitutional right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him” means, always and everywhere, at least what it explicitly says: the “‘right to meet face to face all those who appear and give evidence at trial.’” People v. Camacho, 2025 Guam 16, Opinion Page 12 of 36

Id. at 862 (alterations in original) (citations omitted). Justice Scalia wrote that “[w]e are not free

to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of clear and explicit constitutional guarantees, and then to adjust

their meaning to comport with our findings.” Id. at 870. He characterized the majority as

supporting their “antitextual conclusion by cobbling together scraps of dicta from various cases

that have no bearing here,” specifically taking aim at the majority’s reliance on Ohio v. Roberts,

448 U.S. 56 (1980). Id. at 863. Justice Scalia wrote that “Roberts . . . dealt with the implications

of the Confrontation Clause, and not its literal, unavoidable text. . . . [T]hat the defendant should

be confronted by the witnesses who appear at trial is not a preference ‘reflected’ by the

Confrontation Clause; it is a constitutional right unqualifiedly guaranteed.” Id. The dissent

concluded that “[t]he Court has convincingly proved that the Maryland procedure serves a valid

interest, and gives the defendant virtually everything the Confrontation Clause guarantees

(everything, that is, except confrontation). I am persuaded, therefore, that the Maryland procedure

is virtually constitutional. Since it is not, however, actually constitutional I would affirm the

judgment of the Maryland Court of Appeals reversing the judgment of conviction.” Id. at 870.

[24] Fourteen years later, in Crawford v. Washington, Justice Scalia wrote for a majority of the

Court overruling Roberts:

Admitting statements deemed reliable by a judge is fundamentally at odds with the right of confrontation. To be sure, the [Confrontation] Clause’s ultimate goal is to ensure reliability of evidence, but it is a procedural rather than a substantive guarantee. It commands, not that evidence be reliable, but that reliability be assessed in a particular manner: by testing in the crucible of cross-examination.

Crawford, 541 U.S. at 61. Crawford abandoned the balancing test that had allowed statements

which had “adequate indicia of reliability,” id. at 42, and established a categorical rule that

“[w]here testimonial evidence is at issue, . . . the Sixth Amendment demands . . . unavailability

and a prior opportunity for cross-examination,” id. at 68. In other words, “[w]here testimonial

statements are at issue, the only indicium of reliability sufficient to satisfy constitutional demands People v. Camacho, 2025 Guam 16, Opinion Page 13 of 36

is the one the Constitution actually prescribes: confrontation.” Id. at 68-69. More than one court

has concluded that “[Justice Scalia’s] dissent from Craig became the Supreme Court’s view of the

Confrontation Clause doctrine.” E.g., State v. Smith, 636 S.W.3d 576, 585 (Mo. 2022) (en banc);

see also People v. Jemison, 952 N.W.2d 394, 398 (Mich. 2020) (“[Justice Scalia’s] dissent from

Craig became the Court’s view, transforming its approach to the Confrontation Clause.”). Thus,

the reliability prong of the Craig test has been questioned by Crawford’s rejection of reliability as

a measure of whether the Sixth Amendment is violated. See, e.g., Stevenson v. State, 2021-KA-

00411-COA (¶ 30 n.9), 357 So. 3d 1141 (Miss. Ct. App. 2023).

[25] Except for the Second Circuit,5 the Circuit Courts of Appeals generally express the

opinion—often begrudgingly—that they are bound to treat Craig as good law until instructed

otherwise. See United States v. Maynard, 90 F.4th 706, 711 (4th Cir. 2024) (“Still, because

Crawford didn’t overrule Craig, we’re bound to treat it as good law.”); United States v. Cox, 871

F.3d 479, 492 (6th Cir. 2017) (Sutton, J., concurring) (observing “the two opinions would give

Janus a run for his money” and highlighting six specific points of tension between Craig and

Crawford). By our count, the courts of at least 29 states have considered the interplay between

Craig and Crawford.6 Alabama alone seems prepared to declare that Crawford implicitly

5 As discussed below, the Second Circuit has held that the Craig standard does not apply to two-way video. See United States v. Gigante, 166 F.3d 75, 81 (2d Cir. 1999) (holding that a witness could testify by two-way video— without offending a defendant’s confrontation right—“[u]pon a finding of exceptional circumstances . . . when [video testimony] furthers the interest of justice.”). Although the Sixth Circuit has not taken a position in a published case, it followed the Gigante decision in an unpublished decision. See United States v. Benson, 79 F. App’x 813, 821 (6th Cir. 2003). 6 See Ex parte Bragg, 390 So. 3d 594, 595 (Ala. 2023) (mem.); People v. Gonzales, 281 P.3d 834, 863 (Cal. 2012); People v. Phillips, 2012 COA 176, ¶ 53; State v. Arroyo, 935 A.2d 975, 991 n.18 (Conn. 2007); Blanton v. State, 978 So. 2d 149, 158 (Fla. 2008); In re E. T., 804 S.E.2d 725, 731 n.7 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017); People v. Franklin, 2023 IL App (1st) 200996, ¶ 82, appeal denied, 221 N.E.3d 390 (Ill. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 852 (2024) (mem.); State v. White, 9 N.W.3d 1, 11 (Iowa 2024); State v. Blanchette, 134 P.3d 19, 29 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006); Campbell v. Commonwealth, 671 S.W.3d 153, 166 (Ky. 2023); White v. State, 116 A.3d 520, 542 n.31 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2015); People v. Jemison, 952 N.W.2d 394, 396 (Mich. 2020); State v. Trifiletti, 6 N.W.3d 79, 90-91 (Minn. 2024); Stevenson v. State, 2021-KA-00411-COA (¶ 30 n.9), 357 So. 3d 1141 (Miss. Ct. App. 2023); State v. Smith, 636 S.W.3d 576, 587 (Mo. 2022) (en banc); State v. Mercier, 2021 MT 12, ¶ 25, 403 Mont. 34, 479 P.3d 967; State v. C.D., No. A- People v. Camacho, 2025 Guam 16, Opinion Page 14 of 36

overruled Craig. Ex parte Bragg, 390 So. 3d at 595 (Parker, C.J., concurring) (“I believe that the

balancing approach of Maryland v. Craig . . . has been effectively overruled by the textual-

historical approach established in Crawford v. Washington . . . .” (citations omitted)). At least two

more state courts have held that Craig should be limited to its specific facts. See, e.g., Smith, 636

S.W.3d at 587; Jemison, 952 N.W.2d at 396. Despite these decisions and the fact that “[t]here is

no doubt that the role of reliability in a Confrontation Clause analysis has been called into

question,” Haggard v. State, 612 S.W.3d 318, 326-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020), “nearly all courts

and commentators have agreed, Crawford did not overrule Craig,” Roadcap v. Commonwealth,

653 S.E.2d 620, 625 (Va. Ct. App. 2007) (footnote omitted); accord People v. Franklin, 2023 IL

App (1st) 200996, ¶ 82 (“[W]hile continuing to rely on Craig in the era of Crawford ‘may be

problematic,’ Craig nonetheless remains good law in this jurisdiction and ‘we are bound to follow

it.’” (quoting People v. Pope, 2020 IL App (4th) 180773, ¶¶ 44, 46)); State v. Mercier, 2021 MT

12, ¶ 25, 403 Mont. 34, 479 P.3d 967 (“[W]e are not prepared to declare the proverbial death knell

to Craig just yet, and prefer to await further direction from the Supreme Court. As one

commentator has noted, it may be that the two cases may coexist, with Crawford setting the

standard for the type of out-of-court statements that are subject to the confrontation right and Craig

governing the manner in which in-court testimony may be presented.”).

0055-12T2, 2014 WL 10212770, at *12 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Aug. 12, 2015) (per curiam); State v. Thomas, 2016-NMSC-024, ¶ 26, 376 P.3d 184; In re Noel O., 855 N.Y.S.2d 318, 324 n.5 (Fam. Ct. 2008); State v. Seelig, 738 S.E.2d 427, 434 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013); State v. Carter, 174 Ohio St. 3d 619, 2024-Ohio-1247, 238 N.E.3d 87, at ¶¶ 27-31, 35; Commonwealth v. Tighe, 184 A.3d 560, 569 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018), aff’d but criticized, 224 A.3d 1268 (Pa. 2020); State v. Bowers, No. M2022-00949-CCA-R3-CD, 2023 WL 6211909, at *13 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 25, 2023) (McMullen, P.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Haggard v. State, 612 S.W.3d 318, 326-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020); State v. Henriod, 2006 UT 11, ¶ 16, 131 P.3d 232; Roadcap v. Commonwealth, 653 S.E.2d 620, 625 (Va. Ct. App. 2007); State v. D.K., 507 P.3d 859, 862 (Wash. Ct. App. 2022); State v. Herbert, 767 S.E.2d 471, 501 n.12 (W. Va. 2014) (Loughry, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); State v. Vogelsberg, 2006 WI App 228, ¶ 16, 297 Wis. 2d 519, 724 N.W.2d 649. People v. Camacho, 2025 Guam 16, Opinion Page 15 of 36

[26] As one treatise has noted, the pandemic forced nearly all courts to grapple with remote

testimony, and the majority of jurisdictions relied on Craig:

The 2020 pandemic created significant challenges for courts adjudicating criminal cases. One of those challenges was preserving the rights of criminal defendants under the Confrontation Clause when conditions made it dangerous for witnesses, defendants, and counsel to be together in the courtroom. Many pre- pandemic courts had allowed witnesses to testify via two-way video conferencing—even at trial itself and even without the consent of the defendant— when the witness was unable to travel to testify live. They allowed this only after applying the two prong analysis of Craig, which allowed video testimony only when (1) the witnesses’ absence is “necessary to further an important public policy and (2) the reliability of the testimony is otherwise assured.” Courts during the pandemic continued to apply the Craig test to authorize remote testimony by witnesses in trial and other proceedings that carried the right to confrontation. Reviewing courts rejected video testimony, however, when trial courts failed to consider, or erroneously rejected, viable alternative steps that could have preserved in-person testimony while safeguarding health and safety.

Wayne R. LaFave et al., 6 Crim. Proc. § 24.2(e) (4th ed. Nov. 2024 Update) (footnotes omitted);

cf. Wayne R. LaFave et al., 6 Crim. Proc. § 24.4(b) (5th ed. Nov. 2025 Update) (“Since the

pandemic, the number of states permitting and considering remote testimony in criminal

proceedings has increased.”). We agree with the People that “[a] per se prohibition on remote

testimony in any other case is inconsistent with the developing law in the rest of the country,” and

“[c]ourts across the country have adopted the two-prong standard in Maryland v. Craig to

determine whether testimony via two-way closed-circuit telecommunication is constitutionally

permissible.” Appellee’s Br. at 2, 12. We join the majority of jurisdictions in finding that Craig

remains good law.

2. Craig’s framework is appropriate for two-way video testimony of an adult

[27] Even if Craig remains good law, it does not by its own terms apply to two-way video

testimony of an adult witness. Camacho correctly points out that Craig dealt with the testimony

of a child victim delivered via one-way video. See Appellant’s Br. at 8. However, his argument

that remote testimony is only allowed at trial for a child witness under Guam Rule of Evidence People v. Camacho, 2025 Guam 16, Opinion Page 16 of 36

804.1(d) is misguided, see id. at 9-11, as exemplified by the many cases which have allowed

testimony of adult witnesses via two-way video absent any evidentiary rule, e.g., People v. Lujan,

150 Cal. Rptr. 3d 727, 729, 733-34 (Ct. App. 2012) (holding California courts have inherent

authority to order remote testimony); People v. Wrotten, 923 N.E.2d 1099, 1101 (N.Y. 2009).

[28] Camacho’s argument that “the Government would like to create an exception that swallows

the rule,” Appellant’s Reply Br. at 3 (May 9, 2025), is unfounded and unsupported by authority.

His argument misapprehends the relationship between the Constitution, court rules, and

legislation. See id. at 3-4. Camacho’s reasoning is circular: the presence of a rule does not make

that rule constitutional. See, e.g., United States v. Gear, Cr. No. 17-00742 SOM-1, 2019 WL

150538, at *3 (D. Haw. Jan. 9, 2019) (“The Government appears to be arguing that the very

existence of Rule 15(c)(3) satisfies the ‘important public policy’ requirement. This court is

unaware of any authority for that proposition.”). The People are correct that including a

“procedure for remote testimony of child witnesses in GRE 804.1” but not for other forms of

remote testimony is not determinative. See Appellee’s Br. at 9-10.

[29] Craig arose under a Maryland law that allowed child witnesses in sex abuse cases to testify

via one-way video; Craig’s applicability here is therefore uncertain. Camacho argues that the

decisions of this court have set “a high bar . . . to overcome the Defendant’s Right to face-to-face

confrontation. The standards should not be lower[] than that set by Rule 804.1 and Craig.”

Appellant’s Br. at 11. The People disagree, arguing that this court’s precedent “can be extended

to cases other than child victims of sexual assault provided that the important interest advanced by

the People is specific to the case at bar.” Appellee’s Br. at 9. The People are correct that

“[p]rotecting child victims of sexual abuse . . . is by no means the only important interest that may

outweigh a defendant’s right to face-to-face confrontation.” See id. at 10. People v. Camacho, 2025 Guam 16, Opinion Page 17 of 36

[30] Generally, other jurisdictions deciding whether adult-witness testimony via two-way live

video satisfies the Confrontation Clause follow one of three approaches: (1) the Second Circuit’s

test in United States v. Gigante, 166 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 1999), (2) Crawford, or (3) Craig. See Smith,

636 S.W.3d at 582-84 (discussing three main approaches and collecting cases). Even before

Crawford, some courts held that the Craig standard did not apply to two-way video testimony.

We review these approaches below.

a. Although pragmatic, Gigante is an outlier that provides less protection

[31] Most notable of the decisions finding Craig inapplicable to two-way video is the Second

Circuit’s decision in Gigante. Camacho’s analysis of Gigante is unconsidered, and despite his

conclusory statement to the contrary, application of the Gigante standard undermines his

arguments on appeal. See Appellant’s Br. at 13-15.

[32] In Gigante, the Second Circuit held that because the trial court “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.” Gigante, 166 F.3d at 81. Instead, the court applied the

standard from Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 15 governing depositions, which requires (1) a

finding of exceptional circumstances and (2) that the testimony would further the interests of

justice. Id. The Second Circuit reasoned that “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.” Id. The Second Circuit emphasized its belief that remote

testimony would afford “greater protection” of a defendant’s “confrontation rights than would

have been provided by a Rule 15 deposition.” Id. To support its conclusion that remote testimony

was superior to a deposition, the court pointed to the fact it forced the witness to testify before the

jury, allowed the jury to judge the witness’s credibility “through his demeanor and comportment,” People v. Camacho, 2025 Guam 16, Opinion Page 18 of 36

and allowed the defendant’s attorney to weigh the impact of the witness’s “direct testimony on the

jury as he crafted a cross-examination.” Id. The court contrasted this with Rule 15 practice, where

“the bare transcript” of the witness’s deposition would have been admitted, “which would have

precluded any visual assessment of his demeanor.” Id. The Second Circuit emphasized that

“[c]losed-circuit television should not be considered a commonplace substitute for in-court

testimony by a witness.” Id.

[33] The Second Circuit stands as an extreme outlier in holding that a “confrontation” via two-

way video is equivalent to a face-to-face confrontation. See United States v. Bordeaux, 400 F.3d

548, 554 (8th Cir. 2005) (rejecting view that two-way video is constitutionally equivalent to face-

to-face confrontation); see also 6 Crim. Proc. § 24.4(b) (5th ed.) (“Not surprisingly, no other circuit

has accepted the Gigante approach, either in dispensing with the Craig requirements for two-way

videoconferencing, or in using Rule 15 as a substitute for Craig.”). And most states have also

rejected Gigante’s view of confrontation. See, e.g., State v. Tate, 969 N.W.2d 378, 385 (Minn. Ct.

App. 2022) (terming Gigante the “primary outlier”). However, more recently, some jurists have

expressed their increased receptiveness to Gigante given their experiences with remote testimony

during the pandemic:

Rather than purposefully obscuring a fundamental aspect of live testimony, the modern two-way telecommunications technology at issue here is intended to transmit substantially the same information as that shared by individuals physically present in the same room. As the COVID-19 pandemic has forced many of us to discover, such technology can now readily host a wide range of important interactions, including court proceedings such as the oral argument in this appeal. . . . Mechanical application of the Craig standard is unhelpful in this dynamic technological context.

The Duane standard allows a court to effectively vindicate constitutional rights without falling into technological obsolescence.

Mercier, 2021 MT 12, ¶¶ 50-51 (McGrath, C.J., specially concurring); see also id. ¶ 45

(McGrath, C.J., specially concurring) (arguing Montana adopted Gigante in City of Missoula v. People v. Camacho, 2025 Guam 16, Opinion Page 19 of 36

Duane, 2015 MT 232, 380 Mont. 290, 355 P.3d 729). Although much of Gigante’s pragmatic

approach is attractive, courts have been apprehensive about concluding that the standard for

deposing a witness adequately safeguards a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights. See, e.g., Tate,

969 N.W.2d at 385-86; Rogerson, 855 N.W.2d at 504. We share that apprehension.

b. Crawford establishes a categorical rule that does not easily map onto in- court testimony

[34] While the Second Circuit has relied on Rule 15 to replace Craig, it is not the only court to

find Craig does not apply to two-way video. As referenced above, both Missouri and Michigan

have limited Craig to its specific facts—testimony of a child witness via one-way video. Michigan

seems to stand alone in explicitly applying Crawford to all witnesses who are not child victims.

See Jemison, 952 N.W.2d at 400 (“The witness here was neither the victim nor a child; Crawford

thus provides the applicable rule.”). In People v. Jemison, 952 N.W.2d 394 (Mich. 2020), the

Michigan Supreme Court stated that under Crawford, a “defendant’s confrontation right is absolute

for all ‘testimonial’ evidence unless a witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior

opportunity to cross-examine the witness.” Id. at 399 (quoting Crawford, 541 U.S. at 68). The

court reversed the defendant’s conviction because the witness’s testimony was “testimonial,” and

the defendant had a “right to face-to-face cross-examination” because the witness “was available,

and the defendant did not have a prior chance to cross-examine him.” Id. at 401.

[35] In State v. Smith, 636 S.W.3d 576 (Mo. 2022) (en banc), the Missouri Supreme Court

explained that under Crawford, “a defendant’s confrontation right is absolute for testimonial

evidence unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant had ‘a prior opportunity for cross-

examination.’” Smith, 636 S.W.3d at 585 (quoting Crawford, 541 U.S. at 68). The court then

reversed the defendant’s conviction because the trial court failed to make an express finding that

the witness who testified via two-way video was unavailable. Id. at 587. The Smith court stated People v. Camacho, 2025 Guam 16, Opinion Page 20 of 36

that although it need not decide “[w]hether the combination of oath, cross-examination, and

observation of demeanor, when utilized in a two-way video setting in which the witness is in a

remote location with minimal or no safeguards, is ever enough to ensure the reliability of any

witness,” it was “not confident the issue would be decided the same way today.” Id. After quoting

at length from Justice Sotomayor’s order stating that the constitutionality of two-way video is “not

obviously answered by Maryland v. Craig,” the court concluded that “[t]o decide two-way video

procedures categorically satisfy the safeguards of the Confrontation Clause would be to easily

dispense with the ‘face-to-face confrontation requirement,’ something the Supreme Court required

in Crawford . . . and even expressly cautioned against in Craig . . . .” Id. (quoting Wrotten, 560

U.S. 959 (Sotomayor, J., respecting denial of certiorari)). Thus, the Missouri Supreme Court

appears inclined to apply Crawford to two-way testimony, but it has yet to explicitly do so.

[36] Although the categorial rule of Crawford makes for easy application, the impracticality of

its results may account for why most courts are reluctant to apply it in place of Craig. Most courts

do not seem inclined to adopt a categorical bar on remote testimony unless the U.S. Supreme Court

explicitly requires such a result. Because Crawford recognizes “only those exceptions [to

confrontation] established at the time of the founding,” 541 U.S. at 36, it forces courts to engage

in awkward thought experiments by asking questions like “What did James Madison think of

Zoom meetings?”7 Although Crawford adopted much of the dissent from Craig, the focus of

Crawford was not physical confrontation, but cross-examination. As Justice Scalia wrote in

Crawford, the Confrontation Clause commands that reliability be assessed in a particular manner:

“by testing in the crucible of cross-examination.” 541 U.S. at 37. Because Crawford focuses on

7 To paraphrase a famous quip from oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court: “Well, I think what Justice Scalia wants to know is what James Madison thought about video games.” Tr. of Oral Arg. at 17, Brown v. Ent. Merchs. Ass’n, 564 U.S. 786 (2011) (No. 08-1448). People v. Camacho, 2025 Guam 16, Opinion Page 21 of 36

the prior opportunity for cross-examination, a rule requiring a remote deposition before remote

testimony at trial would arguably satisfy the letter of the Crawford standard—even if the defendant

is not physically present to confront the witness at either time. But such a rule violates the spirit

of Justice Scalia’s dissent in Craig (in addition to adding the extra inconvenience and cost of

having to depose all videoconference witnesses before they can testify at trial). Although adopting

Crawford would safeguard the Sixth Amendment rights of defendants, it would likely necessitate

adopting prophylactic rules that would impose costs not necessarily required by the Constitution.

We do not adopt Crawford, especially because Camacho does not ask us to do so.

c. Although Craig is not without its problems, we adopt its standard

[37] Except for the Second Circuit, every circuit that has addressed the testimony of an adult

witness via two-way video in a published decision has applied Craig. The trial court relied on the

Eleventh Circuit to support its conclusion that Craig applied. RA, tab 63 at 3 (Dec. & Order)

(quoting Yates, 438 F.3d at 1315). The Eleventh Circuit standard on which the trial court relied

also emphasizes the need for an evidentiary hearing, id., which fits into this court’s jurisprudence

on remote testimony, see Callahan, 2018 Guam 17 ¶ 22 (holding evidentiary hearing mandatory

under Guam Rule of Evidence 804.1 when requested).

[38] Another leading decision adopting Craig for two-way video testimony is from the Ninth

Circuit, United States v. Carter, 907 F.3d 1199, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2018). There, the Ninth Circuit

held “that a defendant’s right to physically confront an adverse witness (whether child or adult)

cannot be compromised by permitting the witness to testify by video (whether one-way or two-

way) unless Craig’s standard is satisfied.” Id. at 1206. However, Carter has a confounding bit of

logic: forgoing physical confrontation for a two-way video procedure is not “necessary” when a

deposition of the witness is theoretically possible with the defendant present. See id. at 1209. People v. Camacho, 2025 Guam 16, Opinion Page 22 of 36

Carter held that depositions are preferable to live remote testimony at trial.8 United States v.

Harris, 842 F. App’x 28, 30 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing Carter, 907 F.3d at 1209). The Eleventh

Circuit’s decision in Yates also focuses on the (theoretical) availability of a deposition. See 438

F.3d at 1314. In that case, the Eleventh Circuit determined that the Craig standard was not met

because, despite the defendants being tried in Alabama, the government failed to show any special

circumstances prevented it from taking the witnesses’ testimony at depositions in Australia (which

defendants were theoretically allowed to attend).9

[39] A recent case out of Hawai’i shows how courts can interpret the Craig standard to require

impractical results. In United States v. Harris, the owner and operator of a Honolulu business was

charged with multiple crimes for fraudulently billing a government health care program for speech

therapy services provided to special-needs children of military families. 983 F.3d 1125, 1126 (9th

Cir. 2020). The government requested that two witnesses “be permitted to testify via two-way live

video due to the exceptional circumstances of the severe illnesses of their minor children and the

public policy present in this case involving military families with special needs children.” United

States v. Harris, CR. No. 17-00001 HG-01, 2018 WL 1990519, at *4 (D. Haw. Apr. 26, 2018),

8 Although Carter was decided only seven years ago, this pre-pandemic decision was decided before the current paradigm shift where the majority of depositions in civil cases are now conducted remotely, and remote depositions are gaining wider acceptance in criminal cases. See Wayne R. LaFave et al., 6 Crim. Proc. § 24.4(b) (5th ed. Nov. 2025 Update) (“Since the pandemic, the number of states permitting and considering remote testimony in criminal proceedings has increased.”); Examination of Witnesses § 2:29 n.2 (2d ed. Oct. 2025 Update) (noting depositions in criminal cases are generally strongly disfavored on policy grounds, but “the use of video technology changes this dynamic and mitigates to some degree the absence of an opportunity to observe a witness’s demeanor”); Lauren Angelina, Note, Civil Courts in the Aftermath of A Global Pandemic: Enhancements or Disruptions?, 31 Widener L. Rev. 45, 52 (2025) (“[S]urveys show that over eighty percent of attorneys anticipate ‘at least one party in every proceeding going forward to participate remotely.’” (footnote omitted)). 9 The Eleventh Circuit’s discussion of taking depositions in a foreign country on the other side of the world was rather superficial. See Matthew J. Tokson, Comments, Virtual Confrontation: Is Videoconference Testimony by an Unavailable Witness Constitutional?, 74 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1581, 1614 n.159 (2007) (“Whether or not depositions taken in Australia, at issue in Yates, would meet this standard is unclear. It appears possible, though it largely depends on local immunity and privilege law and the willingness of Australian officials to accommodate requests for full cross- examination and videotaping. Yates ignores the issue.”). The 2012 amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure acknowledge that there are instances where a defendant cannot be transported to a witness’s location for a deposition. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 15 advisory committee’s note to 2012 amendment. People v. Camacho, 2025 Guam 16, Opinion Page 23 of 36

aff’d, 842 F. App’x 28 (9th Cir. 2020). One witness lived in North Carolina, had a minor child

with special needs, and had a husband deployed on active duty; while the other witness had to give

round-the-clock care to her daughter who was in a serious accident. Id., at *4-5. The district court

granted the government’s request to allow the witnesses to testify by two-way video, reasoning

that “[l]ive video conferencing is preferable to deposition testimony.” Id., at *3 (citing Gigante,

166 F.3d at 81). In a memorandum decision filed concurrently with the published opinion on

appeal, the Ninth Circuit found that district court’s decision was error because “[o]ur court in

Carter, however, held the opposite with respect to the preferability of depositions.” Harris, 842

F. App’x at 30-31. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that “[t]he record does not reflect . . . that the

witnesses were unavailable for depositions near their respective homes. . . . Because this

alternative was available to preserve Harris’s right to physical face-to-face confrontation, two-way

video testimony was not ‘necessary,’ and thus Harris’s confrontation rights were violated under

Carter.” Id.

[40] Although the Ninth Circuit ultimately found this error was harmless, it did not seem to

have considered the practical realities of their decision—including that a deposition would have

satisfied Harris’s confrontation rights only if she was transported over 4,500 miles from Hawai’i

to North Carolina (while presumably in federal custody). See id. at 30 (“The record does not

reflect, however, that the witnesses were unavailable for depositions near their respective

homes.”). Whatever shortcomings the Second Circuit’s Gigante decision might have, its

conclusion seems much more reasonable that “closed-circuit presentation of [witness] testimony

afforded greater protection of [the defendant’s] confrontation rights than would have been

provided by a Rule 15 deposition.” Gigante, 166 F.3d at 81. As a leading treatise notes:

In a number of cases, . . . a prosecutor has urged a court to allow a witness to testify by closed-circuit TV from a remote location, without giving the defendant the right to be present. The government has argued, with some plausibility, that People v. Camacho, 2025 Guam 16, Opinion Page 24 of 36

allowing the witness to testify live, by two-way closed-circuit television, where the witness can see what is happening in the courtroom just as those in the courtroom can watch the witness is, in fact, better than a Rule 15 deposition, because it permits the jury to see and hear the witness testify, and thereby gives the jury a far better opportunity to evaluate and weigh the witness’ testimony than it could if it received only a written transcript of that testimony.

4 Clifford S. Fishman & Anne T. McKenna, Jones on Evidence § 25A:59 (7th ed. Nov. 2025

Update). These arguments typically fail under the Craig standard. Id. (“The message seems clear:

whether one camera, two, or none are employed, a deposition per Rule 15, with actual in-the-same-

room confrontation remains the constitutional standard, even if the government must go to

considerable expense and inconvenience.”).

[41] The Harris decision illustrates that for jurisdictions like Guam and Hawai’i, the Craig

standard can be interpreted in problematic ways, insofar as some courts hold Craig establishes a

categorical preference for depositions with in-the-same-room confrontation. See Harris, 842 F.

App’x at 30. Contrast this with Gigante, where the Second Circuit considered the defendant’s

“own inability to participate in a distant deposition,” when it found remote testimony preferable.

See 166 F.3d at 81. When traveling thousands of miles makes it difficult for a witness to attend a

trial in person, the converse will also likely be true, and it will usually be difficult for a defendant

to attend a deposition in person. One can empathize with the district court in Harris, ruling before

Carter was decided, when it justified its decision that remote testimony was superior to a

deposition with the observation that “[a] close reading of Crawford reveals that the opportunity

for rigorous cross-examination, rather than mere physical presence of the defendant, is the central

tenet of the confrontation right.” Harris, 2018 WL 1990519, at *4 (alteration in original) (quoting

United States v. Rosenau, 870 F. Supp. 2d 1109, 1115 (W.D. Wash. 2012)); accord Alisson

Sandoval, “It’s the End of the World As We Know It” – Redrafting Amendment to Federal Rule of People v. Camacho, 2025 Guam 16, Opinion Page 25 of 36

Criminal Procedure 26 to Allow Remote Testimony, 39 Touro L. Rev. 605, 631 (2024) (“[T]here

are several reasons why Rule 15 depositions are inferior to two-way video testimony.”).

[42] Here, the Superior Court reached a similar conclusion as the district court in Harris,

determining that remote testimony was preferable to a deposition. The trial court found that:

The only proposed alternative from the People or Defendant would involve flying the Defendant, his counsel, and any other necessary parties to Ohio to attend a deposition of Dr. Nine there. This would erase the opportunity for the jury to scrutinize the witness during his testimony, and would arguably provide a less fair trial for the Defendant. Allowing Dr. Nine to testify remotely would also avoid the significant time and financial costs of a deposition in Ohio. Furthermore, any evidence or hearsay objections that may arise during a deposition would not be reviewable by the Court in the moment they are made in the circumstance of a deposition. Live, remote testimony would allow for the Court to rule instantly on any objections, just as it would if the witness were in person.

. . . . The Court believes that two-way, remote video testimony will allow for the Defendant’s trial to take place at the earliest possible time, without the significant delays that would be associated with a deposition taking place in Ohio.

RA, tab 63 at 6 (Dec. & Order). Although this conclusion runs afoul of the Ninth Circuit’s

reasoning in Carter and Harris, we endorse the trial court’s case-specific conclusion that live video

conferencing was preferable to deposition testimony. We agree that “courts can make case-

specific findings that video testimony is required to further important public policies even where .

. . depositions are legally available.” See Matthew J. Tokson, Comments, Virtual Confrontation:

Is Videoconference Testimony by an Unavailable Witness Constitutional?, 74 U. Chi. L. Rev.

1581, 1608 (2007). Unlike the Eleventh and Ninth Circuits, we reject a deposition requirement.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Craig said nothing about depositions. We are not bound to adopt

an interpretation of Craig that the theoretical possibility of a deposition renders remote testimony

categorically unnecessary.

[43] We have cited Craig twice, both in the context of child testimony. See Morales, 2022

Guam 1 ¶ 20; Callahan, 2018 Guam 17 ¶ 29. In distinguishing the application of Craig in People v. Camacho, 2025 Guam 16, Opinion Page 26 of 36

Callahan, we observed that “[w]e are not confronted with the use of digital video conferencing

programs or other methods that might strike the same balance as Craig’s closed-circuit television.”

Callahan, 2018 Guam 17 ¶ 30. This issue is now before the court, and we find that two-way video

conferencing strikes the same balance as the one-way close-circuit video in Craig. We join the

majority of state courts in finding Craig applies to testimony from an adult witness via two-way

video, with the caveat that the theoretical possibility of a deposition does not render remote

testimony unnecessary.

B. The Trial Court applied Craig Correctly

[44] Having determined that Craig applies, the next question is whether the People met their

burden under that standard and whether the trial court made case-specific findings on that point.

To satisfy Craig, the trial court must make a case-specific finding after an evidentiary hearing that:

(1) denial of in-person, face-to-face confrontation is necessary to further an important public

policy; and (2) the reliability of the videoconference testimony can and will be procedurally

assured. See Craig, 497 U.S. at 850, 855; State v. Hamed, 21-167, p. 6 (La. App. 5 Cir. 8/18/21),

326 So. 3d 375, 381. The People bear the burden of making a “case-specific” showing that both

prongs of Craig are met by a preponderance of evidence. Hamed, 326 So. 3d at 381.

[45] The People argue, “The trial court addressed both prongs of the Craig test and applied them

to the facts of this case. Accordingly, it did not err in determining that Dr. Nine should be allowed

to testify remotely, outside of Mr. Camacho’s physical presence.” Appellee’s Br. at 12. We agree.

1. The People have shown that denial of in-person, face-to-face cross-examination is “necessary to further an important public policy”

[46] Camacho claims that “[i]n this case, there simply is no necessity of the type Craig

contemplates.” Appellant’s Br. at 13 (emphasis omitted). He claims that “[t]he decision and order

of the trial court does not spell out the public policy interest which outweighs the face-to-face People v. Camacho, 2025 Guam 16, Opinion Page 27 of 36

confrontation rights of Defendant-Appellant Camacho required by Craig.” Id. at 15. It is incorrect

to claim the trial court made no findings on this prong of Craig, as the trial court identified at least

three public policy concerns it felt rendered the remote testimony necessary. RA, tab 63 at 4-6

(Dec. & Order). Although it is a close call whether these public policies—in isolation or

combination—satisfy Craig, Camacho’s attempt to dismiss them is unpersuasive. The People are

correct that “the trial court was guided by the proper standard set out in Maryland v. Craig and re-

articulated in United States v. Yates” and made the requisite case-specific findings.10 Appellee’s

Br. at 10.

[47] “[A] defendant’s right to ‘physical, face-to-face confrontation at trial’ may be

compromised by the use of a remote video procedure only upon a ‘case-specific finding’ that []

the denial of physical confrontation ‘is necessary to further an important public policy[.]’”

Mercier, 2021 MT 12, ¶ 19 (alterations in original) (quoting Carter, 907 F.3d at 1208). “Under

the first prong, we consider de novo whether the use of live, remote, two-way video technology

for the [prosecution witness’s] testimony [i]s necessary to further an important public policy.”

Tate, 969 N.W.2d at 386. “Courts are essentially uniform in requiring, under the first prong,

‘something more than [] generalized findings’ of policy concerns.” Mercier, 2021 MT 12, ¶ 19

(alteration in original) (quoting Coy, 487 U.S. at 1021). The Montana Supreme Court has held

that “‘judicial economy, added expense, or inconvenience alone are not important public policies

sufficient to preclude the constitutional right of a defendant to face-to-face confrontation at trial,’

10 The People are incorrect that Dr. Nine is beyond the Superior Court’s subpoena power. See Appellee’s Br. at 11 (May 7, 2025). Both Guam and Ohio have adopted the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without a State in Criminal Proceedings. 8 GCA § 164.30 (added by Guam Pub. L. 37-110:1 (July 22, 2024)); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2939.26 (West 2025); see also Appellant’s Reply Br. at 5-6 (May 9, 2025). This may cast some doubt on whether Dr. Nine would be unavailable under Crawford, which generally requires a good faith effort to subpoena the witness. See, e.g., State v. Trice, 874 N.W.2d 286, 295 (Neb. 2016) (“While issuance of a subpoena is not an absolute prerequisite to proving a witness is unavailable, serving a witness with a subpoena to testify ordinarily constitutes a sufficient good faith effort to procure the witness’ attendance at trial.” (footnotes omitted)). People v. Camacho, 2025 Guam 16, Opinion Page 28 of 36

although they may be a part of the consideration of the circumstances.’” State v. Whitaker, 2024

MT 255, ¶ 22, 418 Mont. 501, 558 P.3d 741 (citations omitted). “Courts define an ‘important

public policy’ narrowly for the purpose of finding an exception to the Confrontation Clause.” Tate,

969 N.W.2d at 386.

[48] Although this prong is reviewed de novo, the trial court’s findings are a proper place to

begin this court’s analysis—if for no other reason than to determine whether the court made the

“case-specific” determination required by Craig. See Craig, 497 U.S. at 855. The trial court

identified three public policies that supported remote testimony: (1) the caretaking responsibilities

of Dr. Nine and his family’s health; (2) Dr. Nine’s unique testimony about the autopsy he

performed; and (3) the mandate of 8 GCA § 80.50 that “all proceedings in criminal cases shall be

set for trial and heard and determined at the earliest possible time.” RA, tab 63 at 4-6 (Dec. &

Order). The trial court found the California Court of Appeal’s decision in People v. Coulthard,

307 Cal. Rptr. 3d 383 (Ct. App. 2023), to be persuasive. Id. at 5-6 (Dec. & Order).

[49] The trial court’s findings are case-specific rather than “‘generalized findings’ of policy

concerns.” See Mercier, 2021 MT 12, ¶ 19. Camacho is incorrect in his claim that the trial court

did not “spell out” the public policy interests. See Appellant’s Br. at 15. However, the trial court’s

reliance on Coulthard was somewhat misplaced. The California court mentioned several of the

policy concerns that exist in this case:

[Witness] was the primary caretaker of two of her children (both of whom were too young to be vaccinated against COVID-19) and did not have the means to arrange for alternate childcare. Further, [witness]’s testimony could not be supplanted with testimony from some other person, and [defendant] had asserted his right to a speedy trial. As such, there was no reasonable alternative to [witness]’s remote testimony at the time the trial court ruled.

Coulthard, 307 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 411. The court’s decision was rooted in public policy concerns

related to the COVID-19 pandemic—including the travel of an unvaccinated witness from the UK People v. Camacho, 2025 Guam 16, Opinion Page 29 of 36

to California. Id. (quoting Hernandez-Valenzuela v. Superior Court, 291 Cal. Rptr. 3d 154, 169

(Ct. App. 2022); People v. Kocontes, 302 Cal. Rptr. 3d 664, 737 (Ct. App. 2022); Roman Cath.

Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. 14, 18 (2020) (per curiam)). When considered in

combination, we conclude the public policies here are important enough to satisfy Craig.

a. Caretaking of family members is usually insufficient to satisfy Craig on its own, but suffices under the unique facts of this case

[50] The trial court found that “ensuring the safety of Dr. Nine’s wife and child qualifies as an

important public policy, particularly given the large distance between Guam and Ohio and the

unique circumstances requiring his physical presence.” RA, tab 63 at 5-6 (Dec. & Order).

Standing alone, caretaking of family members is usually insufficient to satisfy Craig. For example,

the Wyoming Supreme Court held that while it was appropriate for a witness who could not travel

because of a serious medical condition to testify remotely, it was error to allow his wife (who had

no illness) to do the same. Bush v. State, 2008 WY 108, ¶ 54, 193 P.3d 203, 216 (Wyo. 2008)

(“We have found no cases in which any court has considered whether circumstances such as these

were sufficient to show testimony by video conference was necessary to further an important

public policy.”). The Ninth Circuit also rejected similar caretaking concerns in Harris. Harris,

842 F. App’x at 30-31. The Washington Court of Appeals seems to be the only court that has

recognized that “the important policy of alleviating physical pain and suffering can extend to the

circumstances when the witness would attend to another’s needs resulting from such suffering.”

State v. Sweidan, 461 P.3d 378, 389 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). There is some persuasive value to

their holding that “[n]o reason exists to distinguish between the aching of the witness and the

hurting of a witness’s close family member.” Id.

[51] Rather than attempting to address this unsettled question on the merits, Camacho suggests

that “[w]hile the health of family members of the witness are genuine private concerns, they are People v. Camacho, 2025 Guam 16, Opinion Page 30 of 36

not important public policy concerns that overcomes the Confrontation Clause.” See Appellant’s

Br. at 16. Camacho argues that “[t]he record does not establish that the health of family members

would be endangered, in fact, [Dr. Nine] admitted that he has flown to Guam three times between

May and October of 2024. He also acknowledged that his wife is the daily caregiver for their

foster child and that his medical condition is static.” Id. Because we review this issue de novo,

we need not defer to the trial court’s conclusion that the health of Dr. Nine’s family prevents him

from traveling to Guam without putting their lives at risk. See RA, tab 63 at 5-6 (Dec. & Order).

[52] We conclude the unique facts on the record before us render this an exceptional case. Dr.

Nine is a licensed medical professional providing care to his wife and son, providing an important

distinction in this case from those in other jurisdictions where courts rejected caretaking of family

members as important public policies under Craig. See Bush, 2008 WY 108, ¶ 54; Harris, 842 F.

App’x at 30-31. The conditions of Dr. Nine’s family members are serious, and in the case of his

son is life-threatening. Dr. Nine testified that his wife’s condition impairs her vision, and her

medication—which he administers—renders her “severely immunodepressed and

immunocompromised.” Tr. at 7 (Mot. Hr’g). He testified that because of her condition, “she does

not drive a vehicle” and rarely leaves their home. See id. at 7-8. Dr. Nine further testified that

their son “requires 24-hour care because of his quadriplegia and severe cerebral palsy.” Id. at 9.

Also, his son “requires three therapy sessions every week.” Id. Dr. Nine testified that although

his wife has the medical training to care for their son, she cares for him only while Dr. Nine is at

work, and he “take[s] care of him the rest of the time.” Id. at 15. According to Dr. Nine, he has

no family or close friends in Ohio who could help to care for his wife and son in his absence. See

id. at 8.

[53] As the only medical testimony on the record before us reflects the fact that the lives of Dr.

Nine’s family members will be placed in jeopardy by his absence to attend trial, we conclude that People v. Camacho, 2025 Guam 16, Opinion Page 31 of 36

the burden of leaving his wife alone to provide 24-hour care for their son is too great and presents

too great a risk. Cf. Bedford v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Civil Action No. 1:18-CV-175-GHD-DAS,

2019 WL 7040620, at *3 (N.D. Miss. Dec. 20, 2019) (“This court . . . is not prepared to assume

the responsibility for subjecting [the witness] to a life-threatening deposition. Should the court

allow the deposition, and the worst occur, no ‘amount of apologies or statements of sorrow will

compensate for the known risk, especially since the only medical testimony in this case reflects

the fact that [the witness’s] life will be placed in jeopardy.’” (quoting In re McCorhill Publ’g, Inc.,

91 B.R. 223, 225 (S.D.N.Y. 1988))).

[54] The Craig decision itself stands for the proposition that protecting the health of a child is

itself an important public policy. See State v. Rhodes, 2011 WI 73, ¶ 35, 336 Wis. 2d 64, 799

N.W.2d 850 (“In Craig, the important public policy concern was the protection of the ‘physical

and psychological well-being’ of children.”). Additionally, Guam has important public policy

concerns specifically regarding protecting children who are born in Guam, are disabled, and have

been placed with families via foster care and/or adoption. See, e.g., 19 GCA § 13100 et seq. (Child

Protective Act); id. § 13336 (Foster Children’s Bill of Rights); cf. In re Parentage of M.J., 787

N.E.2d 144, 151 (Ill. 2003) (“Illinois has a strong interest in protecting and promoting the welfare

of its children.”); J.B. v. Valdez, 186 F.3d 1280, 1291 (10th Cir. 1999) (agreeing that state had

important interest in care, disposition, and welfare of disabled children in its custody); In re

C.T.M., 1 N.M.I. 171, 172 (1990) (“In our society, both Chamorro and Carolinian cultures,

children are held in high esteem. Every effort should be made to ensure that they are protected by

due process of law in any possible deprivation of life, liberty, or property. At a minimum, this is

required under our concept of fundamental fairness and protection for children.”). We thus

disagree with Camacho’s contention that these “genuine private concerns . . . are not important People v. Camacho, 2025 Guam 16, Opinion Page 32 of 36

public policy concerns.” See Appellant’s Br. at 16. When considered with other factors presented

by this case, discussed below, the first prong of Craig is met.

b. Prompt resolution of criminal cases alone is not a public policy that satisfies Craig

[55] Any public policy favoring prompt resolution of criminal cases is insufficient to meet Craig

on its own. See Rogerson, 855 N.W.2d at 507 (“There is . . . a general consensus among courts

that mere convenience, efficiency, and cost-saving are not sufficiently important public necessities

to justify depriving a defendant of face-to-face confrontation.”); Whitaker, 2024 MT 255, ¶ 22. As

the Eleventh Circuit held in Yates: “the prosecutor’s need for the video conference testimony to

make a case and to expeditiously resolve it are not the type of public policies that are important

enough to outweigh the Defendants’ rights to confront their accusers face-to-face.” 438 F.3d at

1316. Although the cost and difficulty of getting Dr. Nine to Guam are not disputed, courts resist

this justification. See, e.g., Faughn v. Commonwealth, 694 S.W.3d 339, 347 (Ky. 2024) (“While

we applaud the Commonwealth for their commitment to the financial well-being of Kentucky’s

prosecutorial system, a savings of ten to fifteen-thousand dollars cannot outweigh a defendant’s

constitutional rights.”). However, “[w]here considerations beyond mere convenience and

expedience are involved, . . . the factual setting of a case may support a finding of necessity to

justify the absence of a witness’s physical presence at trial.” White, 116 A.3d at 545-46. For

example, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals concluded that “the combined public policy

justifications of resolving cold cases and simultaneously protecting the physical well-being of a

significant witness are sufficient under Craig . . . .” Id. at 547.

[56] Beyond noting that Camacho has waived speedy trial, the opening brief does little to

engage with this public policy concern addressed by the trial court. See Appellant’s Br. at 15-16. People v. Camacho, 2025 Guam 16, Opinion Page 33 of 36

Although it was not inappropriate for the trial court to consider this public policy, it is insufficient

on its own to meet the Craig necessity standard.

c. Importance of a witness’s testimony supports physical confrontation, but public policy favors admission of evidence from the Chief Medical Examiner

[57] The final public policy concern discussed by the trial court was that “Dr. Nine is the only

possible witness regarding the autopsy.” RA, tab 63 at 5 (Dec. & Order). The court found, “His

testimony is critical to the People’s case because he personally performed the autopsy on Victim,

and as he testified at the Evidentiary Hearing, no one else was present for the autopsy and it was

not videotaped.” Id. We agree with the Eleventh Circuit’s view that—standing alone—the

importance of a witness’s testimony is not a sufficient public policy concern to satisfy Craig.

Yates, 438 F.3d at 1316 (holding that although “presenting the fact-finder with crucial evidence”

is an “important public policy,” it did not outweigh defendant’s right to face-to-face

confrontation); Sweidan, 461 P.3d at 388 (rejecting importance to State of witness’s testimony as

sufficient to support finding of important public policy). The more important a witness’s testimony

is to the prosecution, the more scrupulously a defendant’s confrontation rights must be honored.

See Reply Br. at 5 (“It appears their main argument is that the more essential the witness is, the

fewer constitutional rights of the accused must be recognized.”).

[58] There is a public policy concern regarding Dr. Nine’s testimony that is unique to this case

and merits discussion. Generally, “we may affirm the judgment below for any reason justified by

the record, even if different from the reasons articulated by the trial court.” Ehlert v. Univ. of

Guam, 2019 Guam 27 ¶ 10. A major part of the importance of Dr. Nine’s testimony is his former

role as the Medical Examiner of Guam. Chapter 81 of Title 10 of the Guam Code Annotated

expresses a public policy that the Medical Examiner investigate deaths, perform autopsies, and

that his findings be admissible evidence. See 10 GCA §§ 81101-81113 (2005). Section 81111 People v. Camacho, 2025 Guam 16, Opinion Page 34 of 36

provides: “The records of the Office of Post-Mortem Examinations, or transcripts thereof certified

by the Chief Medical Examiner, are admissible in evidence in any court of Guam, except that

statements by witnesses or other persons and conclusions upon extraneous matters are not hereby

made admissible.” Thus, there is a public policy that favors the admissibility of evidence from

autopsies performed by the Medical Examiner. See 10 GCA §§ 81101-81113. This weighs

slightly in favor of meeting Craig’s first prong.

[59] We affirm the trial court’s decision on the first prong of Craig on narrow grounds. When

the unique public policy concerns in this case, as argued by the People and found by the trial court,

are considered together—the importance of evidence from the Medical Examiner, the health of

Dr. Nine’s family, and the policy favoring prompt resolution of criminal cases—they meet the

Craig necessity standard.

2. The People have shown that the remote testimony will be “otherwise reliable”

[60] Under the Craig test, reliability may be shown and “[p]hysical presence may be excused .

. . if the court preserves ‘all of the other elements of the confrontation right: . . . . oath, cross-

examination, and observation of the witness’ demeanor.’” State v. Trifiletti, 6 N.W.3d 79, 88

(Minn. 2024) (alterations in original) (quoting State v. Tate, 985 N.W.2d 291, 304 (Minn. 2023)).

The only reliability challenge raised by Camacho regards a “virtual oath.” See Reply Br. at 6 (“[A]

virtual oath broken outside the jurisdiction of [Guam] is not as enforceable, and therefore less

reliable, than an oath broken in the presence of the Judge, Jurors and the Counsel establishing the

testimony.”). This concern is misplaced. The oath required by the Confrontation Clause is

effective only if the witness can be subjected to prosecution for perjury after making a knowingly

false statement. See Harrell v. State, 709 So. 2d 1364, 1371 (Fla. 1998) (“[A]n oath is only

effective if the witness can be subjected to prosecution for perjury upon making a knowingly false

statement.” (citing Craig, 497 U.S. at 845-46)). But the suggestion that a witness testifying People v. Camacho, 2025 Guam 16, Opinion Page 35 of 36

remotely from within the United States would be immune from a perjury prosecution is meritless.

See id. (holding “the possibility of perjury” would only be “an empty threat for those witnesses

that testify via satellite from outside the United States” absent a treaty that permits extradition for

perjury (emphasis added)). As Ohio, Guam, and federal law all prohibit perjury, a perjury

prosecution would not be an empty threat in this case. See Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2921.11 (West

2025); 18 U.S.C.A. § 1621(1) (Westlaw through Pub. L. 119-59 (2025)); 9 GCA § 52.15 (2005).

[61] Despite quoting post-Crawford Supreme Court decisions for the proposition that the Court

has “reiterated the rejection of the ‘adequate indicia of reliability’ exception that had previously

existed,” Appellant’s Br. at 6 (quoting Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. 779, 783 (2024)), Camacho does

not otherwise contend the testimony of Dr. Nine fails to meet the reliability prong of Craig, see

Reply Br. at 5-6. Given our de novo review and the interlocutory nature of this appeal, we find it

prudent to provide guidance to the trial court regarding the need to preserve the reliability of remote

testimony.

[62] As a practical matter, absent technical difficulties, the reliability prong is usually easily

met. Jones on Evidence observes that once the first prong of Craig is satisfied, “[t]he procedure

itself will, as a rule, satisfy the second requirement.” 4 Jones on Evidence § 25A:59. However,

the remote trial testimony here touches on confrontation considerations beyond the reliability

factors discussed in Craig (where the witness was still in the courthouse):

Face-to-face in-court testimony serves several purposes: (1) it “ensures the reliability of the evidence by allowing the trier of fact to observe the demeanor, nervousness, expressions, and other body language of the witness”; (2) it “impresses upon the witness the seriousness of the matter and ensures that statements are given under oath”; and (3) it “helps assure the identity of the witness, that the witness is not being coached or influenced during testimony, and that the witness is not improperly referring to documents.”

See State ex rel. Montgomery v. Kemp, 371 P.3d 660, 663 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016) (quoting United

States v. Hamilton, 107 F.3d 499, 503 (7th Cir. 1997)); accord In re R.D., 2021 IL App (1st) People v. Camacho, 2025 Guam 16, Opinion Page 36 of 36

201411, ¶ 15. In addition to preserving the oath, cross-examination, and observation of the

witness’s demeanor, trial courts must take extra steps to ensure the reliability of remote testimony

when the witness testifies remotely from outside the courthouse. Courts must ensure that witnesses

called to testify remotely are alone and not subject to being coached. In re R.D., 2021 IL App (1st)

201411, ¶ 15. Courts must also make certain that witnesses are not improperly “using notes,

documents or electronics while testifying.” Id. These steps “adequately ensure[] that the

testimony is both reliable and subject to rigorous adversarial testing in a manner functionally

equivalent to that accorded live, in-person testimony.” Id. (quoting Craig, 497 U.S. at 851).

V. CONCLUSION

[63] Craig remains good law and can be applied properly to two-way video testimony of an

adult witness. The People met their burden of showing, and the trial court made adequate case-

specific findings, that Dr. Nine’s remote testimony is necessary to further an important public

policy and is otherwise reliable. We AFFIRM.

/s/ /s/ F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO KATHERINE A. MARAMAN Associate Justice Associate Justice

/s/ ROBERT J. TORRES Chief Justice