The Supreme Court's decision in Maryland v. Craig, by allowing one-way closed-circuit televised testimony by a child alleged to be a victim of sexual abuse, eliminates face-to-face confrontation, restricting the protection of the Confrontation Clause guaranteed by the Federal Constitution's Sixth Amendment. This article includes: (1) a review of relevant case law; (2) procedural and practical difficulties of the Craig decision (need for expert witnesses; defense experts' access to the child for evaluation; limitations of video cameras); and (3) psychological and sociological issues involved in determining whether the needs of child witnesses and the confrontation rights of the defendant were balanced. Trial courts should closely examine all factors that contributed to a child's accusations, including possible motivational and suggestive factors, and critically examine expert opinions concerning possible long-term traumatic effects upon a child witness testifying in defendant's presence. By balancing all these factors, the trial court will give proper deference to the Confrontation Clause rights of the defendant while maintaining the state's interest in protecting child witnesses. Footnotes