Johnson v. Commonwealth

The defendant was convicted of complicity to traffic in methamphetamine, engaging in organized crime, and complicity to murder the victim. The victim’s wife testified remotely via Zoom due to health concerns, detailing the drug trafficking operations and her suspicions about the defendant’s involvement in the murder. The defendant argued that the remote testimony violated his Confrontation Clause rights and raised additional issues regarding hearsay, prior bad acts, and the jury hearing about his prior conviction. The court found that allowing teh victim’s wife to testify remotely violated teh defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights because the Commonwealth failed to establish that her remote testimony was necessary under Maryland v. Craig, which held remote testimony is permissible only if it is necessary to further an important public policy and the reliability of the testimony is assured.