Court Opinion

ID: 9761082
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:31:17.408074+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:20.016199
License: Public Domain

PAPADAKOS, Justice,
concurring.
It goes without saying that under the federal and state Constitutions, a defendant has a right of confrontation which includes the absolute right to adequate cross-examination. When, in the early stages of a prosecution, the defendant, while exercising due diligence, does not have all the informa*592tion upon which to base a meaningful cross-examination, then it cannot be said that the defendant has exercised his constitutional right to confrontation.
The facts in this case clearly show that the defendant has been denied a full and complete right of confrontation. Although counsel had the opportunity to cross-examine Hauser at the preliminary hearing, that cross-examination was severely restricted by the lack of full knowledge of Hauser’s background and prior inconsistent statements. Counsel cannot be faulted for not having this information at hand during the early stages of the prosecution. And even if we were to fault counsel for being unprepared with this knowledge, then the defendant was not receiving effective assistance of counsel.
The mere recitation of Hauser’s background and prior inconsistent statements, if permitted, cannot have the same impact as a live performance before a jury and cannot fulfill the defendant’s right of confrontation.
I do not believe it is necessary to reinvent the wheel by citing and reviewing precedents that have always held that a defendant must be afforded a full, fair and adequate right of cross-examination. The use, at trial, of the transcript of Hauser’s testimony at the preliminary hearing under the facts of this case would unquestionably violate the defendant’s constitutional rights.