confrontation right — “physical presence, oath, cross-examination, and observation of demeanor by the trier of fact” — physical presence, or a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him face-to-face, forms “the core of the values furthered” by the Clause. Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 846-47, 110 S.Ct. 3157, 111 L.Ed.2d 666 (1990); see also Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1016, 108 S.Ct. 2798, 101 L.Ed.2d 857 (1988) (finding a violation of the right to confront witnesses where a screen was placed between the defendant and two child witnesses in a child abuse case). But the physical confrontation right is not absolute, and alternatives such as video-confrontation may be acceptable where “necessary to further an important policy.” See Craig, 497 U.S. at 852, 110 S.Ct. 3157 (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Bell, 464 F.2d 667,
holding that the confrontation clause does not categorically prohibit a child witness in a sexual abuse case from testifying against a defendant at trial outside defendants physical presence by means of oneway closed circuit television holding that any confrontation right is found in the fourteenth amendments due process clause not the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment holding that use of a oneway closed circuit television proce dure where necessary to further an important state interest does not impinge upon the truthseeking or symbolic purposes of the confrontation clause holding that hearsay argument for admission of evidence did not preserve confrontation clause challenge on appeal argument could have referred either to rules of evidence or confrontation clause but failed to identify confrontation clause as basis and thus did not put trial court on notice of issue holding that the confrontation clause does not apply to the sentencing hearing