Opinion ID: 2612942
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Unavailability As An Absolute

Text: The state argues that unavailability is not required in all cases and should not be required here because the hearing was videotaped and defense counsel engaged in extensive cross-examination. Therefore, the state contends, Medina received everything that the Confrontation Clause guarantees. The state's argument has some appeal. Medina attended the preliminary hearing and was able to confront Casanova. Casanova underwent significant cross-examination. The jurors saw it  they did not just read it. It is not clear whether Medina was prejudiced in fact. If this case could properly be decided under Maryland v. Craig , Medina probably received the essence of confrontation. [8] But, unlike Craig, this is not a case involving in-court procedures for a witness who is actually present. Under Barber and Roberts, unavailability is an essential ingredient of the Confrontation Clause when the proffered evidence is former testimony. We are thus powerless to adopt the state's argument. Without a proper showing of unavailability, former testimony is per se inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause. As the Court said in White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 351, 112 S.Ct. 736, 741, 116 L.Ed.2d 848, Roberts stands for the proposition that unavailability analysis is a necessary part of the Confrontation Clause inquiry ... when the challenged out-of-court statements were made in the course of a prior judicial proceeding. (Emphasis added.)