The court ruled that first the child must face the defendant and attempt to communicate. Only then may the child testify using a two-way closed circuit, if the child shows evidence of severe trauma that would preclude further testimony. The Maryland high court based its decision on its interpretation of the United States Supreme Court's 1988 decision in Coy vs. Iowa. The Maryland decision in Maryland vs. Craig departed dramatically from the prevailing interpretation of Coy and presents three crucial issues for the United States Supreme Court. The first asks if a law is constitutional if it allows protective procedures that prevent face-to-face confrontation when a trial judge determines that a protective procedure is "necessary" for a child to testify. The other questions are concerned with determining how "necessary" the protective procedure must be and what the trial judge should consider in order to evaluate whether a protective procedure is necessary. The Craig appeal will afford the U.S. Supreme Court the opportunity to expand on Coy and define further the circumstances in which courts are allowed to employ protective procedures to shield children from exposure to their alleged victimizers.