Opinion ID: 1742511
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Preference for Live Testimony

Text: The trial court's ruling on the admissibility of the tape at both the guilt and sentencing stages goes to the heart of the overriding preference for live testimony in a face-to-face confrontation before the fact finder. [6] The Confrontation Clause and the intertwined rules governing the use of hearsay evidence have as a basic purpose the promotion of the `integrity of the fact-finding process.' White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356-57, 112 S.Ct. 736, 743, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (Rehnquist, C.J.) (quoting Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1020, 108 S.Ct. 2798, 2802, 101 L.Ed.2d 857 (1988)). Thus, neither the state nor the defendant may conduct a trial on the basis of prepared affidavits or other litigation statements which otherwise do not fall within a well-settled exception to the hearsay rule. See State v. Rault, 445 So.2d 1203, 1208 (La.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 873, 105 S.Ct. 225, 83 L.Ed.2d 154 (1984); State v. Martin, 356 So.2d 1370, 1373-74 (La.1978).