Opinion ID: 2639002
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Ohio v. Roberts

Text: In Roberts, the United States Supreme Court articulated two criteria under the Sixth Amendment for the admission of hearsay statements where the declarant is unavailable for cross-examination. [8] First, the prosecution must demonstrate that the declarant is unavailable. [9] Second, the district court may admit the hearsay statement if it either: (1) falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception, or (2) the statement reflects particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. [10] Thus, as noted, Roberts largely embraced federal hearsay doctrine as the formula for evaluating whether violations of the Confrontation Clause had occurred. [11] Flores asserts that the district court erred in admitting Sylvia's out-of-court hearsay statements because they were highly unreliable under the Roberts test, thus violating her Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. While we disagree with Flores's assessment of reliability under Roberts and would affirm the district court under the Roberts test, we are compelled to examine the propriety of admitting the three hearsay statements under Crawford v. Washington , which, during the pendency of this appeal, overruled Roberts with respect to testimonial hearsay. [12] Because the district court adhered to the then-valid Roberts test when it made the critical rulings below, and because Crawford changes the entire construct under which hearsay evidence, including hearsay evidence involving child declarants, may be introduced without offense to the Confrontation Clause, the transition from Roberts to Crawford is briefly discussed below.