The “Unholy Alliance”: Why the Government Wants to Replace Live Witnesses with Paperwork

By: John Guidry

I’m seeing a scary trend. An unholy alliance between the legislature and the judicial branch dedicated to concocting new laws that make convicting citizens easier.

• Tiny Example: When I started defending criminal cases in 1993, I was permitted two closing arguments (first closing, then a rebuttal). Not anymore. The accused only gets one.

The Goal: Many technical rules are tipping in favor of the State.

• Incarceration: Rates are through the roof.
• Sentencing: Judges are handcuffed by mandatory minimums.
• The Strategy: Prosecutors love using documents instead of live testimony. Why? Because a defense attorney cannot cross-examine a piece of paper.

Is the State trying to convict you without a live witness?

You have the right to confront your accuser. Call John today at (407) 423-1117.

The Law: The Confrontation Clause

The Sixth Amendment states that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right… to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” This forces prosecutors to bring live human beings to court so I can question them.

• The Check & Balance: Recent U.S. Supreme Court cases (like Melendez-Diaz) have struck down laws that allowed labs to just send a “report” instead of a scientist.
• The Reason: Knowledge is power. Cross-examination gives the jury knowledge. The government often prefers to keep that knowledge out of the jury’s hands.

The Case: Vilseis v. State (The Witness Who Lost It)

In Vilseis v. State, 117 So. 3d 867 (4th DCA 2013), the State tried to bypass the live witness requirement.

• The Facts: A home was burning down. Amidst the chaos, the homeowner gave his neighbor a portable safe (containing $60,000) for safekeeping. The safe was stolen.
• The Witness: The only person who saw Vilseis running away with bags was Ruby White.
• The Meltdown: At trial, Ruby White mentally lost it. She was chattering uncontrollably and couldn’t discern where she was.
• The Move: The Judge declared her “unavailable.” The Prosecutor then asked to read her Deposition Transcript to the jury instead of her live testimony. The Judge allowed it.

The Problem: A “Deposition” is not a trial.

• Discovery vs. Confrontation: We take depositions to find out what a witness knows, not to grill them. We often hold back our best questions for trial. If the State just reads the paper transcript, the jury never sees the witness sweat, and I never get to ask the hard questions.

The Ruling: Paper is Not People

The Appeals Court overturned the conviction.

• The Logic: Admitting the deposition violated the Confrontation Clause.“Discovery depositions are not necessarily the time and place for meaningful cross-examination.”

The Court recognized that just because a lawyer was at the deposition doesn’t mean they had a “prior opportunity for cross-examination” as required by the Constitution. Vilseis gets a new trial—hopefully with a witness who can actually answer questions.

John’s 2026 Update: The “Virtual Witness” & AI Readings

Note: In 2013, the State tried to read a transcript. In 2026, they use Zoom and AI.

1. The “Zoom” Loophole In 2026, courts rarely declare a witness “unavailable.” Instead, they allow Remote Testimony.

• The 2026 Reality: If a witness is “anxious” (like Ruby White), the Judge allows them to testify via video from their home.
• The Problem: I can’t see if they are reading notes. I can’t see if someone is in the room coaching them. The “confrontation” is diluted by a pixelated screen and a bad Wi-Fi connection.

2. AI “Dramatic Readings” Jurors are bored by prosecutors reading transcripts.

• The New Tactic: Some jurisdictions now allow AI Text-to-Speech to read the deposition transcript to the jury using a “neutral” voice.
• The Danger: This dehumanizes the process even further. It makes the witness sound calm and coherent, even if the actual deposition was a mess. We object to this as “misleading the jury.”

3. The Elimination of Depositions The “Unholy Alliance” is currently trying to ban criminal depositions entirely in Florida (claiming it saves money).

• The Threat: If this passes, Vilseis won’t matter because we won’t even have a transcript. We will be going to trial blind, which is exactly what the State wants.

Police Work is Only Easy in a Police State

New laws and court opinions that make police work easier simply erode what little freedom we have left. Don’t let them treat you like a file number.

Call me at (407) 423-1117. Let’s force them to show their face.

About John Guidry II

John Guidry II is a seasoned criminal defense attorney and founder of the Law Firm of John P. Guidry II, P.A., located in downtown Orlando next to the Orange County Courthouse, where he has practiced for over 30 years. With more than three decades of experience defending clients throughout Central Florida since 1993, Guidry has successfully defended thousands of cases in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Brevard, Lake, and Volusia counties. He has built a reputation for his strategic approach to criminal defense, focusing on pretrial motions and case dismissals rather than jury trials.

Guidry earned both his Juris Doctorate and Master of Business Administration from St. Louis University in 1993. He is a member of the Florida Bar and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. His practice encompasses the full spectrum of Florida state criminal charges, with a particular emphasis on achieving favorable outcomes through thorough pretrial preparation and motion practice.

Beyond the courtroom, Guidry is a prolific legal educator who has authored over 400 articles on criminal defense topics. He shares his legal expertise through his popular YouTube channel, Instagram, and TikTok accounts, where he has built a substantial following of people eager to learn about the law. His educational content breaks down complex legal concepts into accessible information for the general public.

When not practicing law, Guidry enjoys tennis and pickleball, and loves to travel. Drawing from his background as a former recording studio owner and music video producer in the Orlando area, he brings a creative perspective to his legal practice and continues to apply his passion for video production to his educational content.