In the U.S. Supreme Court reversal of Coy v. Iowa, the word confront was interpreted in its literal meaning, a flesh-and-blood meeting between the witness and accused. The reversal ignored the State's interests in protecting child witnesses and facilitating child sexual abuse prosecutions. According to the Court, the risks of witness trauma and prosecutorial inefficiency are the price of constitutional guarantee. While courts should not trample the rights of the accused in their haste to curb child sexual abuse, the Court's literal interpretation of the confrontation clause sacrifices a thorough consideration of the countervailing interests and creates an absolute right for the defendant to confront an available, testifying witness in person and without obstruction. Thus, any attempt to shield a child from the defendant at trial will likely fall to a constitutional challenge. 112 notes.