It's pretty important in a criminal case to have the victim actually testify in court. I'm using the phrase "pretty important" as a deliberate understatement. There's even part of our foundational document (the Constitution) -- we call it the Confrontation Clause -- that's devoted to the subject.
I understand that, sometimes, the world's not perfect. If you've got a very good reason, maybe we can allow a critical witness to testify through a camera. One-way, or two-way, or whatever. So, here, in a particular case, maybe having the victim testify via a two-way video while she sits in Minnesota (the trial's in federal court in California) might perhaps be okay.
But when there's an readily available alternative -- just delay the trial for a couple of months, since the reason the victim can't testify in person is because she's seven months pregnant and says that her doctor doesn't want her to travel -- that doesn't count as "good cause" to do the thing on television. Putting a guy away (as here) for forty years is a pretty big thing. Let's try to get it right, shall we? Even if that means doing a trial in July rather than April.
The Ninth Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Bybee, basically says the same thing. Albeit in 26 pages instead of three paragraphs.
