Opinion ID: 628445
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: confrontation of witness

Text: 4 Cifu argues that the admission of the transcript of Rowena Chambers' preliminary hearing testimony violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, because Chambers was available to testify and the transcript was unreliable. 5 The trial judge established that Chambers was unavailable at trial. Before admitting the preliminary hearing transcript into evidence, the court questioned the district attorney at length about his efforts to locate her. The prosecutor's efforts were sufficient. Cf. Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 724-25 (1968) (holding that a witness is not 'unavailable' ... unless the prosecutorial authorities have made a good-faith effort to obtain his presence at trial). 6 Chambers was extensively cross-examined at the hearing and the cross-examination was read to the jury. Thus, the preliminary hearing transcript bore sufficient 'indicia of reliability' and afforded 'the trier of fact a satisfactory basis for evaluating the truth of the prior statement.'  Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 73 (1980) (citations omitted). The evidence fits within a firmly established hearsay exception, Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(1), the former testimony exception. Reliability can be inferred without more in a case where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception. Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66. 7 Cifu argues that Chambers would have recanted her preliminary hearing testimony had she testified at trial. A video and an audio tape of Chambers completely recanting the preliminary hearing testimony were presented at trial. The introduction of the transcript was not error.