Opinion ID: 771185
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Confrontation Clause Jurisprudence

Text: 15 The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, which applies to the states through its incorporation in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Christian v. Rhode, 41 F.3d 461, 465 n.3 (9th Cir. 1994), provides that [i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to . . . be confronted with witnesses against him. U.S. Const. amend. VI. [T]he main and essential purpose of confrontation is to secure for the opponent the opportunity of cross-examination. Delaware v. Van Arsdall , 475 U.S. 673, 678 (1986) (internal quotations omitted); see also LaJoie v. Thompson, 217 F.3d 663, 668 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Van Arsdall). 16 The Confrontation Clause requires that in order to introduce relevant statements at trial, state prosecutors either produce the declarants of those statements as witnesses at trial or demonstrate their unavailability. Bains v. Cambra, 204 F.3d 964, 973 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Ohio v. Roberts, 448U.S. 56, 65-66 (1980)). If unavailability has been demonstrated, then the proffered statements, which are by definition hearsay, must be shown to bear an adequate indicia of reliability. Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 65-66 (1980); Bains, 204 F.3d at 973. This indicia of reliability  may be shown in two different ways. First, if the statements fall within a firmly rooted hearsay exception, reliability is established. See Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 815 (1990); see also Bains, 204 F.3d at 973. In cases where the statements do not fall within such a hearsay rule exception, the evidence must be excluded . . . absent a showing of `particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.'  Wright, 497 U.S. at 815 (quoting Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66). 17 The particularized guarantees of trustworthiness must be shown from the totality of the circumstances . . . . Id. at 819. The relevant circumstances include only those that surround the making of the statement and that render the declarant particularly worthy of belief. Id. There is no mechanical test for determining reliability nor a prescribed list of reliability elements, see Barker v. Morris, 761 F.2d 1396, 1400-03 (9th Cir. 1985), and courts have considerable leeway in their consideration of appropriate factors, Wright , 497 U.S. at 822. The reliability of the out-of-court statements cannot be established by bootstrapping on the trustworthiness of other evidence. Id. at 823.