Confrontation in the Eighth

Over the past couple of years, I've tried to read every criminal law and section 1983 case from the federal circuits.  I don't usually make it, but I'd say I hit 65 - 75% of them, and I'm getting a nice vibe for what circuits tend to do. 

Though I usually prefer the outcomes from the Ninth, I think that the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals is the best federal circuit in the country, and Judge Morris Shepherd Arnold is probably the best judge in the country.  His decisions are always well-reasoned, he's not as wilfull as most judges, and he's no show off.

Granted, his decisions might not have the pizzazz of Kozinki's, Easterbrook's, or Posner's.  But there is a geniue humility to his decision.  His most recent decision showcases everything right about the Eighth Circuit, and about Judge Arnold.

In United States v. Bordeaux, No. 04-1369 (8th Cir., Mar. 7, 2005) Judge Arnold wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel that allowing a witness in a child molestation case to testify through a two-way circuit television violated the Confrontation Clause.  This was so even though the child witness said she would not have the stamina to testify in open court.

More later...