7.3​Presenting Expert Testimony Using Video Communication Equipment⁹

Under certain circumstances, expert testimony may be presented using video communication equipment. MCL 600.2164a(1).¹⁰ MCL 600.2164a provides:

“(1) If a court has determined that expert testimony will assist the trier of fact and that a witness is qualified to give the expert testimony, the court may, with the consent of all parties, allow the expert witness to be sworn and testify at trial by video communication equipment that permits all the individuals appearing or participating to hear and speak to each other in the court, chambers, or other suitable place. A verbatim record of the testimony shall be taken in the same manner as for other testimony.

(2) Unless good cause is shown to waive the requirement, a party who wishes to present expert testimony by video communication equipment under subsection (1) shall submit a motion in writing and serve a copy of the motion on all other parties at least 7 days before the date set for the trial.

(3) A party who initiates the use of video communication equipment under this section shall pay the cost for its use, unless the court otherwise directs.” See also MCR 2.407 (defining and governing videoconferencing and its use in Michigan courts, providing basic standards for the use of videoconferencing technology, and setting forth the criteria for determining whether a case or proceeding is suited for videoconferencing). Except as MCR 6.006 otherwise provides, the use of videoconferencing technology in criminal cases is governed by MCR 2.407. MCR 6.006(A)(1).

Generally, the use of videoconferencing technology is prohibited in bench or jury trials held in circuit court, as well as in any circuit-court proceeding in which “the testimony of witnesses or presentation of evidence may occur . . . .” MCR 6.006(B)(4). The court has discretion to allow the use of videoconferencing technology in bench or jury trials in circuit court or in other circuit-court proceedings at which witness testimony or the presentation of evidence may occur “after all parties have had notice and an opportunity to be heard on the use of videoconferencing technology.” Id.

Similarly, notwithstanding other provisions of the court rules, and subject to constitutional rights, the use of videoconferencing technology is prohibited in district and municipal courts “in evidentiary hearings, bench trials or jury trials, or any criminal proceeding wherein the testimony of witnesses or presentation of evidence may occur, except in the discretion of the court.” MCR 6.006(C)(3).

However, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the court rules and “as long as the defendant is either present in the courtroom or has waived the right to be present, district courts may use videoconferencing to take testimony from any witness in a preliminary examination.” MCR 6.006(C)(4) (emphasis added).