In U.S. v. Yates, No. 02-13654 (Feb. 13, 2006), the Court (en banc) held that two-way video-conferencing to present the testimony of prosecution witnesses in Australia violated the defendants’ Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights.
The Court stated: "The simple truth is that confrontation through a video monitor is not the same as physical face-to-face confrontation. . . . The Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of the right to confront one’s accuser is most certainly compromised when the confrontation occurs through an electronic medium." The Court held that the government’s need to present the testimony was not the type of policy concern that could override the Sixth Amendment. There was no "necessity" to present the testimony through video conferencing, because the deposition alternative of Fed. R. Crim. P. 15 was available (at which a defendant has the right to be present), and the government did not seek a Rule 15 deposition.
The Court rejected the argument that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law without the video testimony. Further, Double Jeopardy did not bar a retrial, as the reversal was not grounded on insufficiency of the evidence. (Tjoflat, Birch & Marcus dissented).
