THE MCCOY DECISION INVOLVED A PROSECUTION UNDER A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE FOR POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA. THE TESTIMONY IN QUESTION WAS THAT OF AN EXPERT WITNESS FOR THE STATE WHO TESTIFIED AS TO THE CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF A SUBSTANCE ALLEGED TO BE MARIJUANA FROM A POLICE LABORATORY ONLY A FEW MILES AWAY FROM THE COURTROOM. THE AUTHOR EMPHASIZES THE COURT'S FAILURE TO CONSIDER THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE USE OF CCTV AND ACTUAL PHYSICAL CONFRONTATION AND THEIR EFFECT ON THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION. THE HISTORY AND PURPOSE OF THE CLAUSE ARE EXAMINED AND THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CCTV AND OTHER AUDIOVISUAL MATERIAL, PARTICULARLY VIDEOTAPE, ARE DISCUSSED. SUPPORT GIVEN THE ARGUMENT THAT CCTV DEPRIVES THE DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT WITNESSES BY THE US SUPREME COURT ANALYSIS OF THE PURPOSE OF CONFRONTATION IN CALIFORNIA V GREEN (1973) IS ALSO CONSIDERED. THE AUTHOR CONCLUDES THAT MCCOY FALLS SHORT OF THE PURPOSE OF THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE AS IT DOES NOT ENSURE THAT TESTIMONY WILL BE GIVEN UNDER OATH. IT SEVERELY HAMPERS EFFECTIVE CROSS-EXAMINATION. IT PREVENTS THE JURY FROM WEIGHING THE DEMEANOR OF THE WITNESS.