Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1980

Ohio v. Roberts

448 U.S. 56 | 100 S. Ct. 2531 | 65 L. Ed. 2d 597 | 1980 U.S. LEXIS 140 | 17 Ohio Op. 3d 240

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case held that an unavailable witness’s prior testimony may satisfy the Confrontation Clause when it was tested by adequate cross-examination and the prosecution made a reasonable, good-faith effort to secure the witness for trial.

Background

Herschel Roberts was charged in Ohio with forgery, receiving stolen property, and heroin possession. At his preliminary hearing, Roberts called Anita Isaacs, the daughter of the alleged victims, as his only witness. His lawyer used leading questions and sought to establish that Anita had given Roberts her parents’ checks and credit cards, or at least had allowed him to use them. Anita denied doing so. The prosecutor did not question her.

Before trial, the State issued five subpoenas to Anita at her parents’ home over several months. She did not appear. At a voir dire hearing, her mother testified that Anita had left Ohio, had previously been in contact with a San Francisco social worker, and had later said only that she was traveling; neither her family nor the prosecutor knew how to reach her. The trial court found her unavailable and admitted the transcript of her preliminary-hearing testimony under an Ohio statute permitting prior testimony when a witness cannot be produced. Roberts was convicted.

The Ohio Court of Appeals reversed because it believed the State had not made the good-faith effort required to establish Anita’s unavailability. The Supreme Court of Ohio agreed that Anita was unavailable, but still affirmed the reversal. It held that a preliminary hearing ordinarily gives defense counsel insufficient incentive to cross-examine fully, and that Anita’s testimony could not be used because Roberts had not formally cross-examined her at that hearing. The United States Supreme Court granted review and reversed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to introduce an unavailable witness’s preliminary-hearing testimony when the defendant had an adequate prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness and counsel effectively used that opportunity.

Holding

Yes. Anita Isaacs’ preliminary-hearing testimony bore sufficient indicia of reliability to be admitted because Roberts’ counsel subjected her to the equivalent of significant cross-examination.

Reasoning

The Confrontation Clause generally prefers face-to-face testimony at trial and protects the defendant’s ability to test adverse evidence through cross-examination. But it does not eliminate every hearsay exception. When a declarant is absent from trial, the Clause ordinarily requires both a showing that the witness is unavailable and adequate indicia of reliability in the prior statement.

Reliability may be inferred when evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception. Otherwise, the prosecution must show particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. Prior testimony given under circumstances closely resembling trial testimony—under oath, before a judicial tribunal, with counsel present and an opportunity for cross-examination—ordinarily supplies the necessary reliability.

California v. Green established that preliminary-hearing testimony can satisfy confrontation when the earlier proceeding gave the defendant a meaningful opportunity to question the witness. The Court declined to decide the broadest possible version of Green—whether a mere unused opportunity to cross-examine always suffices—because Roberts’ lawyer did more than merely have an opportunity: he actually tested Anita’s testimony in a manner functionally equivalent to significant cross-examination.

Although Anita had been called by the defense at the preliminary hearing, counsel used leading questions and sought to undermine her account. He explored whether she and Roberts shared an apartment, attempted to show that she gave him the cards and checks, and challenged her credibility and possible motives. The formal state-law label attached to the examination did not control; its substance served the central purposes of cross-examination.

The result did not turn on the fact that Roberts had a different lawyer at trial or that Anita was absent from trial. A defendant cannot defeat the prior-testimony exception simply by changing counsel, and Green expressly recognized that qualifying preliminary-hearing testimony could be admitted if the witness were genuinely unavailable at trial. The prior examination gave the jury a sufficiently reliable basis to evaluate Anita’s statements.

Issue #2

Whether the State established that Anita Isaacs was constitutionally unavailable despite its failure to locate and produce her at trial.

Holding

Yes. The State made a reasonable, good-faith effort to obtain Anita’s presence, and the record supported the finding that she was unavailable.

Reasoning

A witness is not constitutionally unavailable unless prosecutorial authorities make a good-faith effort to obtain the witness’s presence at trial. The prosecution bears the burden of proving that predicate. What good faith requires depends on reasonableness: the State need not perform futile acts, but it must take affirmative measures when there is a realistic possibility those measures could produce the witness.

The prosecutor issued five subpoenas to Anita at her last known residence over several months. The prosecutor also discussed Anita’s whereabouts with her mother, who had unsuccessfully tried to contact Anita herself and could provide no means to reach her, even in an emergency. Those efforts showed more than a mere assumption that Anita would refuse to appear.

The Court acknowledged that the prosecutor might have contacted the San Francisco social worker or pursued additional leads. But the record showed that Anita had left San Francisco, was traveling at an unknown location, and had not remained in contact with her family. Given the low likelihood that further steps would locate and produce her, the Constitution did not require every conceivable investigative measure.

Barber v. Page did not require a different result. In Barber, the State knew the witness was incarcerated in a neighboring state and made no effort to use available procedures to secure his attendance. Here, Anita’s location was unknown, and there was no assurance that she could be found somewhere from which Ohio could compel her return. The trial court therefore properly found her unavailable.

Dissents

Justice Brennan

Reasoning

Justice Brennan agreed that confrontation and cross-examination are fundamental to a fair criminal trial, but concluded that the State never cleared the threshold requirement of proving Anita’s unavailability. Because the prosecution failed on that ground, he did not reach whether the preliminary-hearing examination was sufficiently full and effective or whether confrontation at a preliminary hearing could substitute for confrontation at trial.

In his view, the State’s actual efforts were plainly inadequate. Its entire search consisted of sending five subpoenas to Anita’s parents’ house, even though the authorities learned after the early subpoenas that she no longer lived there. For at least four months before trial, the State made no attempt to contact or locate her elsewhere.

The majority improperly excused this inaction by speculating that additional efforts probably would not have succeeded. A good-faith effort cannot mean an effort required only when success is assured. The State had promising leads, including the San Francisco social worker, Anita’s welfare application, a same-day telephone contact between Anita and her mother, and possible contacts in Tucson. It should have pursued those leads before relying on Anita’s prior testimony.

Justice Brennan also noted that interstate procedures generally allowed a state to compel an out-of-state witness to attend a criminal trial once found. The uncertainty over Anita’s location therefore did not justify the State’s failure even to investigate. As in Barber, the principal reason Anita was absent was that the State did not adequately seek her presence, so the right of confrontation could not be set aside.