Maryland v. Craig

Craig was a significantly different interpretation of the Confrontation Clause. The Court justified going outside the clear meaning of the text by citing the special circumstances of victims of child abuse.

Sandra Ann Craig owned and operated a kindergarten and prekindergarten daycare center in Howard County, Maryland. In October of 1986, she was charged by a grand jury with sexually assaulting a six-year-old girl who had been in her care from August of 1984 to June of 1986. Before the case went to trial, the prosecution invoked a state law that allowed victims of child abuse to testify via one-way closed circuit television. The law permitted the child witness, the prosecutor, and the defense lawyer to withdraw to a separate room, where the witness was examined and cross-examined while a video monitor relayed these events to the judge, jury, and defendant in the courtroom. During this time, the child cannot see the defendant, but the defendant remains in electronic communication with defense counsel.

The Maryland statute permitted the procedure to be invoked only in situations where the child witness would suffer emotional distress to the extent of being unable to communicate if obliged to be in contact with his or her alleged attacker. In support of its request to use this procedure in Craig, the prosecution named a number of older children who had also allegedly been sexually abused by Sandra Craig and who an expert witness declared would suffer emotional distress if forced to testify in Craig's presence. Craig objected to use of the procedure, but the trial court allowed it, and Craig was convicted on all counts. After her conviction was upheld by two state appellate courts, Craig took her case to the U.S. Supreme Court.