The ever excellent Federal Evidence Review has this nice summary and analysis of White v. Illinois.
While here they report:
Vacating cocaine distribution conviction and remanding because defendant’s trial included expert testimony by a witness about the contents of the drug identification analysis reported by a non-testifying expert, violating the Confrontation Clause; as the expert’s trial testimony "simply parroted the conclusion" of the non-testifying expert, the testifying expert’s "testimony amounted to no more than the prohibited transmission of testimonial hearsay," in United States v. Ramos-Gonzlez, __ F.3d __ (1st Cir. Dec. 9, 2011) (No. 10–1318).
And on the other confrontation issue they report:
Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing airs differing viewpoints on televising Supreme Court proceedings; while there is general agreement that televised proceedings would be beneficial, the primary issue is whether the Supreme Court should voluntarily decide when and how to do so or whether Congress should enact legislation; separation of powers issues and a potential constitutuional showdown are noted; newly introduced legislation (S. 1945) would permit a majority of the Court to authorize televised proceedings.
We now have fairly prompt posting of the audio of argument. I’m uncertain why video at the Supremes (or CAAF, or . . .) should be treated any differently.
Cross posted CL/CMTP