This Comment begins by providing a brief outline of the procedures regulating the use of televised testimony. Next, against the larger backdrop of the history of the right to confrontation, Part III addresses the treatment of televised testimony as hearsay. This section presents a recent Maryland decision as an illustration of the undesirable analogy of televised testimony to hearsay that leads to a more difficult admission standard. Part III concludes with the argument that televised testimony is the functional equivalent of in-court testimony, and thus, a hearsay analysis is inappropriate. Part IV of this Comment presents a recent Supreme Court decision directly addressing the value of face-to-face confrontation. This landmark decision now provides courts with the proper admissibility standard for a procedure in which actual face-to-face confrontation is lacking. Finally, Part V presents an appeal to the Washington legislature urging the adoption of a statute authorizing the use of televised testimony and incorporating the guidelines suggested in this Comment.
Kimberley Seals Bressler, Balancing the Right to Confrontation and the Need to Protect Child Sexual Abuse Victims: Are Statutes Authorizing Televised Testimony Serving Their Purpose?, 12 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 109 (1988).