People v. Buie, 491 Mich. 294

Defendant was convicted of CSC involving a victim under 13 and related offenses after video-taped testimony by a doctor and a DNA analyst was admitted; the witnesses testified by two-way interactive video rather than in court.
The video witnesses—Dr. Palusci and DNA analyst Wolfarth—testified at trial after defense counsel consented to video testimony; defendant reportedly objected to the procedure but counsel stated she would leave it to the court’s discretion.
DNA testing linked defendant to the crime through CODIS, with Donor 1 later matched to defendant’s DNA.
The Court of Appeals reversed, finding Confrontation Clause and MCR 6.006(C) violations and concluding plain error; the Supreme Court granted leave to resolve the confrontation and court-rule questions.
On remand, the trial court held there was no objection to the video, and the Supreme Court ultimately held that defendant waived his confrontation rights via defense counsel’s on-record conduct and that MCR 6.006(C) was satisfied; the Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for remaining issues.
Defendant argued that the video testimony violated the Confrontation Clause and that MCR 6.006(C) required a different analysis; the majority held waiver through counsel, based on Murray and Carter, permitted admissibility absent a timely on-record objection.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation waiver by counsel	Buie contends the right was not waived on the record.	Buie argues defendant never objected personally and counsel’s on-record remarks did not constitute a valid waiver.	Waiver by counsel valid if reasonable trial strategy and no on-record objection by defendant.
Video testimony and the Confrontation Clause	Reliable video testimony can substitute for in-court confrontation.	Video testimony violated face-to-face confrontation unless Craig criteria satisfied.	Waiver and Craig framework applied; video did not violate Confrontation due to waiver.
MCR 6.006(C) applicability	Rule permitted video testimony with good cause and consent of parties.	Consent and good-cause reasoning insufficient or not properly established.	Consent by counsel and defendant’s absence of timely record objection satisfied MCR 6.006(C).
Effect of evidentiary hearing findings	Trial court erred by not recognizing objection to video.	Record shows defense counsel objected; ruling inconsistent with findings.	Trial court findings that there was no proper objection were not clearly erroneous; waiver supported.
Craig/Confrontation standard application	Craig supports denial of confrontation where public policy justifies it.	Craig requires individualized, necessary public policy finding; not shown.	Craig not satisfied; but waiver applied under Michigan law, upholding admission.

Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (1988) (face-to-face confrontation generally required but not absolute)
Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) (two-part test for non–face-to-face testimony: important policy and reliability)
Diaz v United States, 223 U.S. 442 (1912) (defendant may waive confrontation rights through counsel)
Murray v. State, 52 Mich. 288 (1883) (defense counsel may waive confrontation; objection on record required)
Carter v. People, 462 Mich. 206 (2000) (counsel’s waiver on defendant’s behalf generally binds absent personal objection)
Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 1 (1966) (personal waiver of confrontation rights for core elements not strictly required)
Diaz, Murray, and related authorities cited in Buie context, (various Michigan authorities) ((multiple)) (principles guiding counsel waiver and on-record objection)