d not reasonably communicate. The child, prosecutor, and defense attorney go to a separate room and the judge, jury, and defendant remain in the courtroom. The child is examined and cross-examined as a video monitor records and displays the testimony in the courtroom. The child cannot see the defendant but the defendant communicates electronically with defense counsel and objections may be made and ruled on as if the witness were in the courtroom.
The State presented expert testimony that Brooke and the other children would suffer emotional distress that would affect their ability to communicate if required to testify in the courtroom. Ms. Craig objected based on the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause but the court concluded that although the statute "take[s] away the right of the defendant to be face to face with his or her accuser," the defendant retained the "essence of the right," including the right to observe, cross-examine, and have the jury view the witness' demeanor. The court also found the children's courtroom testimony would result in their suffering serious emotional distress that would affect their ability to communicate. The jury convicted Ms. Craig and she appealed, but the Maryland Court of Special Appeals affirmed the conviction. She then appealed to the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the highest court in the state.
The Court of Appeals reversed on the grounds the showing made by the State was insufficient to reach the high threshold required before section 9-102 could be invoked. The court concluded there were valid exceptions to face-to face confrontation; however, it found section 9-102 could not be invoked unless the child initially is questioned in the defendant's presence and the judge finds he
...