Roberts was charged with forging a check in Isaac's name.
At a preliminary hearing, Roberts called Isaac’s daughter
as a witness and blamed her for giving the check to Roberts.
The daughter denied the allegation, and after testifying
she disappeared and did not respond to subpoenas to testify.
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.
Roberts argued that the testimony could not be used
because it was hearsay.
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.
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.
The Trial Judge found that the testimony was admissible.
The Trial Court convicted Roberts of forgery. He appealed
on the grounds that the daughter's testimony had been improperly admitted.
The Ohio Supreme Court reversed. The prosecution
appealed.
The Ohio Supreme Court found that Roberts had not had
sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witness, and therefore the
testimony was not admissible.
The US Supreme Court reversed and found that the
preliminary testimony could be used.
The US Supreme Court found that:
The daughter was under oath and the environment was
trial-like when she testified at the preliminary hearing.
Roberts had the opportunity to examine the daughter and
he used this opportunity.
Therefore, the statements are considered reliability and
even though the statement doesn’t fit under any of the exceptions to
hearsay, it is still admissible under the FRE 807residual
exception.
Basically, the Court found that under the Confrontation
Clause, the prosecution must demonstrate:
Unavailability of the declarant and,
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.”
