CT 6. Before the videotaped testimony could be admitted, the Prosecutor had the burden of proving that he had exercised "reasonable diligence" to try to procure Contreras' attendance, Evid. Code § 240(a)(5), which included demonstrating that he had acted in "good faith" to try to secure her attendance, People v. Jackson, 28 Cal. 3d 264, 312 (1980), overruled on other grounds by People v. Cromer, 24 Cal. 4th 889 (2001). Moreover, when a witness' testimony is "deemed 'critical' or 'vital' to the prosecution's case" — as it was here, given that only Contreras testified to having seen Petitioner holding a gun at the Las Playas crime scene, CT 13- 18, 33 — the prosecution "must take reasonable precautions to prevent the witness from disappearing," People v. Hovey, 44 Cal. 3d 543, 564 (1988) (citing People v. Louis, 42 Cal. 3d 969, 989-91 (1986)).

91 Appellant argued unsuccessfully that the prosecution’s efforts to find Rivera were insufficient (L9RT: 3131-3132), i.e., that it had not met its burden of showing due diligence. This was sufficient, because the prosecution bears to burden of showing thatit “exercised reasonable diligence” (Evid.Code,§ 240, subd. (a)(5)) and madesufficient “good faith effort[s]” (Barber v. Page (1968) 390 U.S. 719, 724-725), to satisfy state law and the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Second, any such argument would have beenfutile.