Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56

Supreme Court of the United States

1980

Chapter

7

Title

Hearsay and Constitutional Issues

Page

297

Topic

Hearsay Statements By Non-Testifying Declarants

Quick Notes

Conviction

o         Roberts was charged with forgery of a check and possession of credit cards belonging to the Isaacs. 

Preliminary Hearing

o         At a preliminary hearing, Roberts counsel attempted to elicit from her an admission that Anita had given Roberts the checks and the credit cards.  Anita denied this. 

At Trial

         At trial, Roberts argued that the daughter had given him the check.

         The prosecution attempted to introduce the preliminary hearing testimony of the daughter denying that she gave Roberts the check.

o    Roberts argued that the testimony could not be used because it was HEARSAY.

o    The prosecution argued that the testimony was not HEARSAY because under Ohio law, testimony from the preliminary examination of a witness was admissible if the witness was not available at trial.

o    Roberts argued that since he did not have the opportunity to cross-examine the witness at the trial, the testimony violated the Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment.

o         The Trial Judge found that the testimony was admissible.

o         The Trial Court convicted Roberts of forgery.  He appealed on the grounds that the daughter's testimony had been improperly admitted.

o         The Ohio Supreme Court reversed.  The prosecution appealed.

o    The Ohio Supreme Court found that Roberts had not had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witness, and therefore the testimony was not admissible.

Supreme Court

o         The US Supreme Court reversed and found that the preliminary testimony could be used.

o    The US Supreme Court found that:

1.       The daughter was under oath and the environment was trial-like when she testified at the preliminary hearing.

2.       Roberts had the opportunity to examine the daughter and he used this opportunity.

o    Therefore, the statements are considered reliability and even though the statement doesnt fit under any of the exceptions to hearsay, it is still admissible under the FRE 807 residual exception.

Analysis To Use

o         Basically, the Court found that under the Confrontation Clause, the prosecution must demonstrate:

o    Unavailability of the declarant and,

o    That the hearsay has indicia of reliability sufficient to justify dispensing with confrontation by showing:

  That the testimony fell within a firmly rooted hearsay exception or that,

  The statement was accompanied by particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.

Book Name

Evidence: A Contemporary Approach.  Sydney Beckman, Susan Crump, Fred Galves.  ISBN:  978-0-314-19105-2.

Issue

o         Whether Anita Isaacs' prior testimony at the preliminary hearing bore sufficient "indicia of reliability?  No.

Procedure

Trial

o         The Trial Court convicted Roberts of forgery.  He appealed on the grounds that the daughter's testimony had been improperly admitted.

Ohio

o         Reverse.  The Ohio Supreme Court found that Roberts had not had sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witness, and therefore the testimony was not admissible

Supreme

o         The US Supreme Court reversed and found that the preliminary testimony could be used

Facts

Discussion

Key Phrases

Rules

The Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause

o         It was made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.

o         In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him."

Read Literally would exclude all hearsay exceptions.

o         If one were to read this language literally, it would require, on objection, the exclusion of any statement made by a declarant not present at trial.

Confrontation Clauses ways to restrict the range of admissible hearsay

1.     (Unavailability) The Sixth Amendment establishes a rule of necessity.

o    In the usual case (including cases where prior cross-examination has occurred), the prosecution must either produce, or demonstrate the unavailability of, the declarant whose statement it wishes to use against the defendant.

2.     (Reliability) The second aspect operates once a witness is shown to be unavailable.

o    Reflecting its underlying purpose to augment accuracy in the factfinding process by ensuring the defendant an effective means to test adverse evidence.

o    The Clause countenances [accepts] only hearsay marked with such trustworthiness that "there is no material departure from the reason of the general rule

o    His statement is admissible ONLY IF it bears adequate "indicia of reliability."

Reliability == Hearsay Exceptions == particularized guarantees of trustworthiness

o    Reliability can be inferred without more in a case where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception.

o    In other cases, the evidence must be excluded, at least absent a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.

Section III

o         Whether Anita Isaacs' prior testimony at the preliminary hearing bore sufficient "indicia of reliability?  No.

In Green

         Preliminary Hearing Statement

o    At the preliminary hearing, a youth named Porter identified Green as a drug supplier.

         At Trial

o    When called to the stand at Green's trial, however, Porter professed a lapse of memory.

         Offered Porters Preliminary Hearing Statements

o    Frustrated in its attempt to adduce live testimony, the prosecution offered Porter's prior statements.

         Admissible to read to jury

o    The trial judge ruled the evidence admissible, and substantial portions of the preliminary hearing transcript were read to the jury.

Mattox v. United States Established Rule

o    Citing the established rule that prior trial testimony is admissible upon retrial if the declarant becomes unavailable.

         Court - Reasoning

o    Porter was under oath; respondent was represented by counsel -- the same counsel in fact who later represented him at the trial;

o    respondent had every opportunity to cross-examine Porter as to his statement; and

o    The proceedings were conducted before a judicial tribunal, equipped to provide a judicial record of the hearings." 399 U.S., at 165.

Court - Opportunity to Cross-Examine Satisfies the Confrontation Clause

o         The opportunity to cross-examine at the preliminary hearing -- even absent actual cross-examination -- satisfies the Confrontation Clause.

o         The mere opportunity for face-to-face encounter [is] sufficient.

Court Holding - Rule

o         The mere opportunity to cross-examine rendered the prior testimony admissible.

o         Nor need we decide whether de minimis [so insignificant] questioning is sufficient, for defense counsel in this case tested Anita's testimony with the equivalent of significant cross-examination.

Defense Porter is distinguishable (Porter was available, Anita Not Available)

o         Green is distinguishable on the ground that Anita Isaacs -- unlike the declarant Porter in Green -- was not personally available for questioning at trial.

Court - This argument ignores the language and logic of Green:

o         "Porter's statement would have been admissible at trial even in Porter's absence if Porter had been actually unavailable.

Defense Confrontation and indicia of reliability

o         Falls back on the general principles of confrontation.

o         The court must undertake a particularized search for indicia of reliability.

o    absence of face-to-face contact at trial,

o    presence of a new attorney, and

o    the lack of classic cross-examination

Prosecution Anita had every reason to lie

o          Anita had every reason to lie to avoid prosecution or parental reprobation.

o         Her unknown whereabouts is explicable as an effort to avoid punishment, perjury, or self-incrimination.

o         Given these facts, her prior testimony falls on the unreliable side, and should have been excluded.

Court Holding

o         We perceive no reason to resolve the reliability issue differently here than the Court did in Green.

o         "Since there was an adequate opportunity to cross-examine [the witness], and counsel availed himself of that opportunity, the transcript bore sufficient 'indicia of reliability' and afforded '"the trier of fact a satisfactory basis for evaluating the truth of the prior statement

Supreme Court of Ohio Reversed

Rules

Class Notes