Document: 448 U.S. 56 100 S.Ct. 2531 65 L.Ed.2d 597 State of OHIO, Petitioner,v.Herschel ROBERTS. No. 78-756. Argued Nov. 26, 1979. Decided June 25, 1980. Syllabus At respondent's preliminary hearing in an Ohio state court on charges forgery a check the name one Bernard Isaacs and possession stolen credit cards belonging to his wife, counsel called as witness Isaacs' daughter, who testified that she had permitted respondent use her apartment for several days while was away. However, refused admit given checks without informing him did not have permission them. Respondent's ask declared hostile or place cross-examination. subsequent criminal trial, he daughter parents' checkbook with understanding could When failed appear at trial despite State's having issued five separate subpoenas residence, offered rebuttal transcript testimony, relying statute which permits such testimony when "cannot any reason be produced trial." voir dire admissibility, conducted after defense objected violative Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, mother, sole witness, left home soon hearing; about year before San Francisco social worker communicated parents daughter's welfare application filed there; last time telephoned, some seven eight months told "was traveling" outside Ohio, but reveal where was; mother knew no way reach case emergency; know anybody was. The admitted into evidence, convicted. Affirming Court Appeals' reversal conviction, Supreme held inadmissible because been actually cross-examined absent admission thus violated confrontation right. Held: introduction evidence constitutionally permissible. Pp. 62-77. (a) hearsay declarant is present cross-examination Clause normally requires showing unavailable. Even then, statement admissible only if it bears adequate "indicia reliability." Reliability can inferred more falls within firmly rooted exception. In other cases, must excluded, least particularized guarantees trustworthiness. Cf. Mancusi v. Stubbs, 408 204, 92 2308, 33 293. 62-66. (b) prior bore sufficient California Green, 399 149, 90 1930, 26 489. It need decided whether, under mere opportunity cross-examine satisfies tested equivalent significant His questioning, replete leading questions, clearly partook matter form comported principal purpose by challenging veracity. Regardless how law might formally characterize afforded substantial compliance purposes behind requirement. Nor this distinguished from Green merely personally available questioning different lawyer hearing. Moreover, does fall among those search reliability" made. 67-73. (c) On facts presented, correctly concluded unavailability constitutional sense, established. 74-77. 55 St.2d 191, 378 N.E.2d 492, reversed remanded. John E. Shoop, Painesville, petitioner. Marvin R. Plasco, Mentor, respondent. Mr. Justice BLACKMUN delivered opinion Court. 1 This presents issues concerning propriety defendant's trial. 2 * Local police arrested respondent, Herschel Roberts, January 7, 1975, Lake County, Ohio. Roberts charged Isaacs, wife Amy. 3 A Municipal 10. prosecution witnesses, including Isaacs. appointed seen Anita, courthouse hallway, defense's witness. Anita Defense questioned length attempted elicit however, denied this. attorney request prosecutor question Anita. 4 county grand jury subsequently indicted forgery, receiving property (including cards), heroin. represented withdrew upon becoming Judge, new Roberts. 5 Between November 1975 March 1976, four dates1 were residence. three carried written instruction should "call appearing." She residence these executed. telephone 6 went Common Pleas. Respondent took stand Tr. 231-232. Relying Rev.Code Ann. § 2945.49 (1975),2 examination trial," State, rebuttal, Anita's testimony. 273-274. 7 Asserting violation indeed, unconstitutionality thereunder 2945.49, transcript. its admissibility. 194-199. Amy dire, both whereabouts. according Tucson, Ariz., About communication there. Through worker, reached their once telephone. Since touch two sisters. called, called. Mrs. stated emergency. App. 9. "know knows is." Id. 11. evidence. convicted all counts. 8 Appeals reversed. After reviewing make "good-faith effort" secure witness' attendance, required Barber Page, 390 719, 722-725, 88 1318, 1320-1322, 20 255 (1968). noted "we testify . behalf determine whereabouts, [or] anyone exhausted contact worker." 5. Unavailability would established, said, "[h]ad demonstrated never served they unable Until requested defense, done nothing, absolutely show unavailability, showed effort made seek out whereabouts Ibid. 9 4-3 vote, affirmed, so grounds. 492 (1978). first erred concluding Page "the government was," whereas "whereabouts entirely unknown." St.2d, 194, N.E.2d, 495, "[T]he judge reasonably due diligence procured attendance Isaacs"; "could infer Francisco"; properly hold unavailable person." Id., 195, 495-496. 10 court, nonetheless, inadmissible. Reasoning there little incentive hearing, "ultimate issue" probable cause, id., 196, 496, citing dissenting 189, 1951, 489 (1970), afford See 493 (court syllabus).3 ruled claimed forgetfulness. perceived "dictum" suggested renders admissible. 198, n. 2, 497, U.S., 165-166, S.Ct., 1938-1939. But "goes further than suggest may later 199, 497 (emphasis original). justices " 'the test full complete rather opportunity' (citing United States Allen, 409 F.2d 611, 613 (CA10 1969)). 200, 498. 11 We granted certiorari consider important Clause. 441 904, 99 1990, 60 372 (1979). II A. 12 here again relationship between rule many exceptions. basic against hearsay, course, riddled exceptions developed over centuries. Cleary, McCormick Evidence 244 (2d ed. 1972) (McCormick) (history rule); §§ 252-324 (exceptions).4 These vary jurisdictions number, nature, detail. See, e. g., Fed.Rules Evid. 803, 804 (over specified exceptions). every set seems fit apt description 40 years ago: "an old-fashioned crazy quilt patches cut group paintings cubists, futurists surrealists." Morgan & Maguire, Looking Backward Forward Evidence, 50 Harv.L.Rev. 909, 921 (1937). 13 applicable through Fourteenth Amendment, Pointer Texas, 380 400, 403-405, 85 1065, 1067-1068, 923 (1965); Davis Alaska, 415 308, 315, 94 1105, 39 347 (1974), provides: "In prosecutions, accused shall enjoy right confronted witnesses him." If read language literally, require, objection, exclusion Mattox States, 156 237, 243, 15 337, 340, L.Ed. (1895) ("[T]here nothing directly contrary letter provision dying declarations"). But, applied, abrogate virtually exception, result long rejected unintended too extreme. 14 historical leaves doubt, intended exclude hearsay. 156-157, nn. 10, 1934 10; see also 252, p. 606. underlying policies support same conclusion. has emphasized reflects preference face-to-face trial,5 "a primary interest secured [the provision] cross-examination." Douglas Alabama, 415, 418, 1074, 1076, 934 (1965).6 short, envisions personal opportunity, testing recollection sifting conscience compelling face order look him, demeanor manner gives whether worthy belief." 242-243, 339. 16 means accuracy are absence proper "calls ultimate 'integrity fact-finding process.' Chambers Mississippi, 410 284, 295, 93 1038, 1046, 35 297 (1973), quoting Berger California, 393 314, 89 540, 541, 21 508 (1969). 17 Court, recognized competing interests, "closely examined," 1045, warrant dispensing 340 ("general rules kind, however beneficent operation valuable accused, occasionally give considerations public policy necessities case"). Significantly, jurisdiction strong effective enforcement, development precise formulation proceedings. Snyder Massachusetts, 291 97, 107, 54 330, 333, 78 674 (1934); 171-172, 1941-1942 (concurring opinion). 18 series sought accommodate interests. True common-law tradition, process gradual, building past decisions, drawing experience, responding changing conditions. "map theory validity 'exceptions.' 162, 1937. general approach problem discernible. B 19 operates ways restrict range First, conformance Framers' accusation, Amendment establishes necessity. usual cases occurred), either produce, demonstrate of, whose wishes defendant. 293 (1972); Motes 178 458, 993, 44 1150 (1900); 161-162, 165, 167, 16, 1936-1937, 1938, 1939, 16.7 second aspect shown Reflecting augment factfinding ensuring defendant adverse countenances marked trustworthiness "there material departure rule." 333. principle recently formulated Stubbs : "The focus Court's concern insure 'are indicia reliability widely viewed determinative placed though declarant,' Dutton Evans, supra, 89, 91 220 'afford trier fact satisfactory basis evaluating truth statement,' 161, 1936. clear statements, numerous decisions even bear 'indicia reliability.' 213, 2313. 22 applied requirement principally certain rest solid foundations them comports "substance protection." 244, 340.8 truism "hearsay generally designed protect similar values," 155, 1933, "stem roots," 400 74, 86, 210, 218, 27 213 (1970). responds certainty workaday world conducting trials. 23 sum, trustworthiness.9 III 24 turn analysis deemed dispositive answered negative—whether Resolution issue careful comparison supra. 25 youth named Porter identified drug supplier. Green's professed lapse memory. Frustrated attempt adduce live Porter's statements. admissible, portions jury. found error. Citing established retrial becomes unavailable, L.Ed.409 (1895); (1972), recent dicta suggesting admissibility circumstances, 725726, 1322; 407, 1069, attack. reasoned: "Porter's already circumstances closely approximating surround typical oath; counsel—the trial; statement; proceedings judicial tribunal, equipped provide record hearings." 1938. factors, concluded, provided demands: "substantial requirement." 166, 1939.10 28 passage others hearing—even actual cross-examination—satisfies Yet showed, recognized, earlier proceeding. 151, 1931. Thus, BRENNAN, writing dissent, conclude "[p]erhaps" encounter [is] sufficient." 8, 1957. Note, 52 Texas L.Rev. 1167, 1170 (1974). 29 decide dismissed statements rendered Westen, Future Confrontation, 77 Mich.L.Rev. 1185, 1211 (1979) (issue "truly difficult resolve conventional theories confrontation"). we de minimis sufficient, 30 Counsel's form. presentation questions,11 tool hallmark crossexamination. addition, counsel's cross-examination: challenge "whether sincerely telling what believed truth, accurately remembered related, declarant's meaning adequately conveyed employed." Davenport, Co-Conspirator Exception Criminal Prosecutions: Functional Analysis, 1378 (1972). unwillingness shift blame away became discernible early continued explore events He attempted, example, establish sharing apartment, assertion critical ulterior reasons unfairly casting another point, challenged veracity seeking obtain television. this, elicited television owned "Twenty Dollar old model." 21. 316-317, 1110-1111, 31 argues that, asked declare hostile, necessarily occurred direct examination. Minneker, 271 821 (1971). requirement," less classic Although authorized objection intervention happen. As "significantly limited scope nature unpersuaded distinguishable ground Isaacs—unlike —was argument ignores logic 32 would, think, That being case, do think follow produced." 1938-39. unlike strain one's reading assign factor significance, advances substance supporting distinction. Indeed, accept suggestion, carry seeds own demise; "same attorney" rule, nullify effect obtaining concluded. 34 Finally, reject back principles confrontation, undertake Under theory, factors previously cited—absence presence attorney, lack cross-examination—combine uniquely tied mandate says, lie avoid parental reprobation. Her unknown explicable punishment, perjury, self-incrimination. Given facts, unreliable side, excluded. making argument, asks us disassociate subjected prior-trial immune Precedent decline invitation. accouterments itself; mention inherent unreliability story. 216, 2314. 36 perceive differently Green. "Since witness], availed himself reliability' ' statement." 2314.12 IV 37 Our holding fully dispose defend judgment alternative ground. contends, lay predicate failure Issacs person All argument. 195 495 497. 38 litmus established: "[A] 'unavailable' exception unless prosecutorial authorities good-faith 724-725, 1322 added). Accord, supra; 1938-1939, 16; said refinement propositions safely emerge. require doing futile act. possibility procuring exists (as, intervening death), "good faith" demands prosecution. possibility, albeit remote, affirmative measures produce declarant, obligation good faith demand effectuation. lengths go reasonableness." 22, 1951 opinion, supra ). efforts undertaken locate evidentiary proponents, burden establishing predicate. presented 41 discussed appropriately essentially heard during preceding summer; then Francisco, traveling Ohio; children takes added significance recalled worker's inquiry came Francisco. abandoning daughter. 42 demonstrates subpoena home, once, occasions period months. "witnessed I locate, subpoenaed, parents, able year." 12. 43 breach duty effort. To sure, tried whom spoken steps find One, hindsight, always things. Nevertheless, great improbability resulted locating led production neutralizes intimation concept reasonableness execution. proposition refusal asking rebuff." 724, 1322, (381 479, 481 1966)). service ineffectiveness conversation far reluctance refusal. investigation last-known real address, parent concerned explored unavailability. each factually provides conclusion here,13 significance. Insofar discloses abroad, weaker ; stronger sense prosecutor, Mancusi, indication, all, Barber, incarcerated federal penitentiary neighboring State. There, was, procedures existed whereby brought position frustrate production. Here, known, assurance forced return 45 demonstrating 46 reversed, remanded inconsistent opinion. 47 ordered. 48 MARSHALL STEVENS join, dissenting. 49 concludes cross-examination, permit offending Amendment. recognizes, Constitution imposes threshold prerecorded Because cannot agree met predicate, dissent.1 "There few subjects, perhaps, courts nearly unanimous expressions belief essential fundamental kind fair country's goal." 405, 1068, (1965). (1969); 721, 1320, (1968); 410, 1071 (STEWART, J., concurring); Kirby 174 47, 55-56, 574, 577, 890 (1899). Historically, inclusion Bill Rights reflected conviction accusers fact. 156-158, 1934-1935, (1970); Park Huff, 506 849, 861-862 (CA5 1975) (Gewin, concurring). heart guarantee accused's compel "to 339, (1895). 174-183, 1943-1948 (Harlan, 51 Despite literal Amendment,2 our necessity keeping importance scheme, imposed heavy impossibility endeavor. excuse engaged diligent procure return. foregoing 1322. Mann, 590 361, 367 (CA1 1978); Lynch, 163 U.S.App.D.C. 6, 18-19, 499 1011, 1023-1024 (1974); Government Virgin Islands Aquino, 549-552 (CA3 1967). J. Wigmore, 1405 (J. Chadbourn rev. 1974) cited therein. am simply From appears record—and suggestion incomplete respect total consisted delivery learned longer living there.3 began, aware moved away; yet entire interval whatsoever try her. believe derelict attempting favorable rely event "unavailability." perfunctory hardly qualify effort." point fact, all. 53 apparently willing prosecution's inaction endeavor unlikely fruit. ante, 75-76. take premise reasoning success condone conduct cursory whereabouts—but seriously bona fide inevitably come naught. Surely speculation difficulty relieve rigor undertaking serve palliate prevail, justify try. Just cautioned rebuff,' (quoting decision below, 381 1966) (Aldrich, dissenting)), so, too, defeat pursuing obvious leads returning emptyhanded. meaningless indeed "if guaranteed." 223, 2318, (1972) (MARSHALL, dissenting). concur bleak prognosis likelihood trial.4 current knowledge possessed information initiated investigation. acknowledges, especially promising lead welfare. What fails mention, datum alone. For day talked spoke And although get emergency, response indicated someone Tucson 198-199. essay exhaustive catalog taken suffices note "hindsight," 75, envision skilled investigator armed (and additional )5 discovered reasonable precisely hindsight enhance vista investigatory opportunities 725, equally germane here: "[S]o reveals, why witness] [her] presence. dispensed lightly." number continuances unrelated absence. reads: "Testimony present, former deposition instance state, used whenever giving dies, has, since become incapacitated testify. contained bill exceptions, authenticated proven transcript, otherwise testimony." "syllabus rule" Baltimore Co. Baillie, 112 St. 567, 570, 148 N.E. 233, 234 (1925). Zacchini Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 562, 565, 97 2849, 2852, 965 (1977). With caveat, "[s]implification measure falsification," defines "testimony matters asserted therein, resting value credibility out-of-course asserter." 246, 584. 157, 1934, (1970) ("it 'confront' forms core values furthered Clause"); 172-189, 1942-1951 opinion); Dowdell 221 325, 590, 753 (1911). 1109, Bruton 391 123, 126, 1620, 476 406-407, 158, 1935 (cross-examination 'greatest legal engine ever invented discovery truth,' 1367 (3d 1940)). Of interrelated, goal draw discrediting factfinder. 548 ensure ways. "[t]he undoubtedly makes someone, particularly Weinstein M. Berger, Weinstein's ¶ 800[01], pp. 800-10 Iowa 360, 365 Second, "insures will oath—thus impressing seriousness guarding penalty perjury." 1935. demonstration required. utility remote seemingly Read, New Confrontation—Hearsay Dilemma, S.Cal.L.Rev. 1, 43, 1970 Term, 3, 194-195, 197-198 1069 (dying declarations); 243-244, 339-340 (same); 213-216, 2313-2314, (cross-examined testimony); Comment, La.L.Rev. 651, 668 ("Properly administered business records seem safest exceptions"). complexity reconciling triggered outpouring scholarly commentary. Few observers commented proposing, roughly detail, approach. Some advanced mode favor F. Heller, 105 (1951); Seidelson, Hearsay Exceptions Geo.Wash.L.Rev. 76, 91-92 (1971) (all excluded except, shows absolute necessity, high degree trustworthiness, "total absence" motive falsify); 1967 82 63, 237 Vand.L.Rev. 682, 694 Others relax restrictions prosecutor. 1397, 159 1974); Test Exceptions: An Uncertain Standard, 59 Calif.L.Rev. 580, 594 ("fixed procedural definition clause protection depend particular force state"); Younger, Hearsay: Look Backward, Peek Forward, Hofstra (1973); 1185 (1979); Graham, Rule Forgetful Witness, 151 (1978); 75 Yale L.J. 1434 (1966). concurring) (Confrontation witnesses; Due Process bars "where supported ex parte reliable judge," 186, 20, 1950). Still proposed help hurt accused. Right Rule: Sir Walter Raleigh Loses Another Crim.L.Bull. 99, 129 Baker, Rules, Process, Conn.L.Rev. 529 UCLA 366, 376-377 (1966) (advocating sliding-scale "probative value-need quotient"); 1190-1191 commentators, sometimes criticizing results agreed 1378, Confrontation-Hearsay ("the traditional recognition preserved, sweeping declarations RIGHT IS THE BEST compRomise"); note, 113 U.pa.l.rev. 741, 748, (1965) (requiring "adequate substitute confrontation," recognizing "fully adequate"). Natali, Three Cases Search Theory, Rutgers-Camden 62 (1975); 199 Notwithstanding divergence commentary misidentified interests accommodated. commentator prevailing line intentions Framers Convinced "no perfectly possible problems," L.J., 73, invitation overrule near-century jurisprudence. begin anew heightened implicit rejection proposals, 93-100, 221-225 opinion), mutually character commentary; steering middle course alternatives. Part section relevant raised here. "dictum." "alternative holding." Brief Amicus Curiae 24, 15. Either view, diminish precedential neither. substantive not, violate III, held: wholly apart IV, returned articulated II. contrasted testifies forgotten events, claiming advancing commentators disagreed class 169, 18, 1940, 18. issue, neither briefed nor addressed determination assertedly remarks officer disposition forgetfulness obtained regard III. follows holding, certainly dictum. portion alone dispositively Calif.L.Rev., 589; 1969 84 114-115 No plainly questions asked, phrases inquiries: "is[n't] that"; "is your knowledge, "; correct"; "you gave "this wasn't pack [not] [discussed; talked] gave. surmounts nebulous "effectiveness." extent adequacy 214-215, 2313-2314. discussion, light representation proceeding, thereto, ineffective. 209, 2311. unusual necessary 1069. extraordinary "effectiveness" involving objective validating prior-testimony place—increasing consistency quoted text indicates 340. ("The preserved prisoner advantage seeing face, subjecting ordeal cross-examination"). "who born Sweden naturalized American citizen, up permanent there." While country, Tennessee murder kidnaping. convicted, habeas corpus relief later, retried Tennessee. Before sent country. served. Stubbs' failing more. "Tennessee powerless procedures." 212, convinced foundation occasion conceding differences objectives preclude substituting proceeding latter. 195-203, 1954-1958, (BRENNAN, subpoenas, returns 4, December February respectively. During sometime home. 197; 75. distinguish (1968), states [Anita] Ohio." Ante, 77. Once located, extremely resisted Uniform Act Secure Attendance Witnesses Without Proceedings enables prosecuting appearance adopted District Columbia, Panama Canal Zone, Puerto Rico, Islands, Union except Alabama. U.L.A. (Supp. 1980). expressed doubt totally forthcoming professing linked involvements who, words, "wants way, forget unpleasantness happened here, prove something herself us, future past." 195-196. 5-6. reservations candidness justified solely representations

Category: 0