witness to testify by means of a procedure other than face-to-face confrontation with the defendant: requisite finding of necessity must of course be a case-specific one: The “The trial court and determine whether use of the one-way closed circuit must hear evidence television procedure is necessary to protect the welfare of the particular child witness who seeks to testify. [Citations.] The trial court must also find that the child witness would be traumatized, not by the courtroom generally, but by the presence of the [Citations.] Denial of face-to-face confrontation is not needed to further the defendant. state interest in protecting the child witness from trauma unless it is the presence of the that causes the trauma. . . . Finally, the trial court must find that the emotional defendant distress suffered by the child witness in the presence of the defendant is more than de more than nervousness or excitement or some reluctance to testify,’ minimis, i.e., ‘mere [citations].” (Craig, 497 U.S. at pp. 855-856, all except latter italics added.) supra, concluded that the Maryland statute met these constitutional standards by Craig requiring the trial court to determine that the child witness would suffer “‘serious emotional distress such that the child cannot reasonably communicate.’” (Craig, supra, 497 U.S. at p. 856.) declined to decide the minimum showing of emotional trauma Craig required to meet these constitutional standards. (Ibid.) In a subsequent California case, (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1772 People v. Sharp (Sharp), disapproved on other grounds in (1995) 11 Cal.4th 434, 452, People v. Martinez the prosecutor was allowed to sit in a chair to the right of the witness stand so that a child witness could focus on the prosecutor and not have to look at the defendant while the
witness to testify by means of a procedure other than face-to-face confrontation with the defendant: “The requisite finding of necessity must of course be a case-specific one: The trial court must hear evidence and determine whether use of the one-way closed circuit television procedure is necessary to protect the welfare of the particular child witness who seeks to testify. [Citations.] The trial court must also find that the child witness would be traumatized, not by the courtroom generally, but by the presence of the defendant. [Citations.] Denial of face-to-face confrontation is not needed to further the state interest in protecting the child witness from trauma unless it is the presence of the defendant that causes the trauma. . . . Finally, the trial court must find that the emotional distress suffered by the child witness in the presence of the defendant is more than de minimis, i.e., more than ‘mere nervousness or excitement or some reluctance to testify,’ [citations].” (Craig, supra, 497 U.S. at pp. 855-856, all except latter italics added.) Craig concluded that the Maryland statute met these constitutional standards by requiring the trial court to determine that the child witness would suffer “‘serious emotional distress such that the child cannot reasonably communicate.’” (Craig, supra, 497 U.S. at p. 856.) Craig declined to decide the minimum showing of emotional trauma required to meet these constitutional standards. (Ibid.) In a subsequent California case, People v. Sharp (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1772 (Sharp), disapproved on other grounds in People v. Martinez (1995) 11 Cal.4th 434, 452, the prosecutor was allowed to sit in a chair to the right of the witness stand so that a child witness could focus on the prosecutor and not have to look at the defendant while the