Opinion ID: 397401
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Due Process Objection

Text: 53 We also reject appellants' contention that admitting the Underhill testimony, even if otherwise proper, violated due process by permitting a conviction based on unreliable evidence. While a case may exist in which the evidentiary base is so totally lacking in reliability that a conviction would violate due process, California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 163 n.15, 90 S.Ct. 1930, 1938 n.15, 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970), this is not such a case. Other evidence sufficiently corroborated Underhill's testimony that the trial court concluded that the statements met the stringent reliability standards of Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(5). 18 While we do not decide if the trial court correctly ruled on the 804(b) (5) issue, we find that the corroborative evidence indicated that Underhill's statements were not totally lacking in reliability, and that a conviction based upon this evidence did not violate appellants' due process rights.