Mattox v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1895 · Evidence

156 U.S. 237 (1895)

Updated August 1, 2026

Evidenceformer testimonyconfrontationConfrontation Clausedeceased witnesscross-examinationstenographic transcriptprior trial testimony

Facts

At defendant's trial for murder, the government showed that two witnesses who had testified at a former trial had since died. The trial court allowed the government to read a transcribed copy of the reporter's stenographic notes of their prior testimony, supported by the reporter's oath that the transcript was correct; both witnesses had been present and fully examined and cross-examined at the former trial. Defendant then sought to introduce two witnesses to testify that one deceased witness, Whitman, had later made statements contradicting his prior testimony. The trial court excluded that impeachment evidence because no foundation had been laid by first asking Whitman about those statements.

Issue

Whether the Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to read at a criminal trial the former testimony of deceased witnesses from an earlier trial when the defendant had previously confronted and cross-examined them, and whether the defendant may impeach such a deceased witness with later contradictory statements without having first laid the usual foundation by questioning the witness about them.

Rule

The constitutional right to be confronted with witnesses against the accused is satisfied, for purposes of former testimony, when the accused has once had the advantage of seeing the witness face to face and subjecting the witness to cross-examination; therefore, a deceased witness's prior testimony from the same case may be proved by a verified stenographic transcript. But before a witness may be impeached by contradictory statements, the witness must first be confronted with the particular statements, time, place, and person involved, and the witness's later death does not dispense with that foundational requirement.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal murder retrial in Wichita, a key prosecution witness, Lena Ortiz, died after the first trial. At that first trial, Ortiz testified under oath in the defendant Daniel Kerr's presence, and Daniel's lawyer conducted a lengthy cross-examination. The prosecution offers the court reporter's transcript, and the reporter testifies that it accurately reflects her stenographic notes.

Should the trial court admit Ortiz's prior testimony over Daniel's Confrontation Clause objection?

Explanation. The majority held that the substance of confrontation is preserved when the accused has once seen the witness face to face and subjected the witness to cross-examination. A deceased witness's prior testimony from a former trial may therefore be proved by a stenographic transcript supported by the reporter's oath that it is correct. The Clause was aimed chiefly at ex parte affidavits and depositions used instead of adversarial testimony, not this situation.