Allowing confidential informant to testify while in disguise does not violate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accusers or due process. Appellant was convicted of federal drug trafficking offenses. On appeal he challenged the lower court’s order allowing a confidential informant to testify while in disguise. Held: Affirmed. As the Supreme Court held in Maryland v. Craig (1990) 497 U.S. 836, in evaluating such issues the trial court should determine whether allowing a disguise furthers an important state interest and whether the reliability of the evidence may be otherwise assured. This involves considering if the proceedings respect the four elements of confrontation: physical presence, oath, cross-examination, and allowing the trier of fact to observe the witness’s demeanor. Here, the disguise was necessary for witness safety. Reliability was assured by the witness’s presence, oath, cross-examination and the jury’s ability to view him while testifying. Any potential due process violation, such as an implication the defendant’s dangerousness caused the witness to wear a disguise, was rendered harmless by the overwhelming evidence.