Ohio v. Roberts

Supreme Court of the United States · 1980 · Evidence

448 U.S. 56 (1980)

Updated August 1, 2026

Evidenceconfrontationreliability (pre-Crawford)Sixth AmendmentConfrontation Clausehearsaypreliminary hearing testimonyunavailability

Facts

At Roberts' preliminary hearing, the defense called Anita Isaacs, who denied giving Roberts her parents' checks and credit cards with permission to use them. Defense counsel questioned her extensively with leading questions aimed at shifting blame from Roberts and challenging her account, though the prosecutor asked no questions. Before trial, the State issued five subpoenas to Anita at her parents' residence over several months, but she was not there and did not appear; her mother testified that Anita had left Ohio, had been traveling, and that no one knew how to reach her. At trial, after Roberts testified that Anita had given him the checks and cards with permission, the State introduced the transcript of Anita's preliminary-hearing testimony on rebuttal.

Issue

Whether the Confrontation Clause permitted the State to introduce the preliminary-hearing testimony of Anita Isaacs when she did not appear at trial. Specifically, the Court considered whether the State sufficiently showed that Anita was unavailable and whether her prior testimony bore adequate indicia of reliability.

Rule

When a hearsay declarant is not present for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause normally requires a showing that the declarant is unavailable. Even then, the statement is admissible only if it bears adequate indicia of reliability; reliability may be inferred when the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception, and otherwise requires particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. A witness is not constitutionally unavailable unless the prosecution has made a good-faith effort to obtain the witness's presence, and the required effort is measured by reasonableness rather than futile or remote possibilities.

🔒

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 burglary prosecution in Cleveland, the State seeks to read a witness's sworn municipal-court hearing testimony after the witness fails to appear at trial. Over four months, the prosecutor sent four subpoenas to the witness's last known home, spoke with the witness's sister, and learned the witness had left Ohio and that no family member knew how to reach him. At the earlier hearing, defense counsel asked numerous leading questions aimed at exposing bias and faulty memory.

Under the majority's confrontation analysis, is admission of the transcript most likely constitutional?

Explanation. The majority used a two-part inquiry: the prosecution must show unavailability through reasonable good-faith efforts, and the prior statement must bear adequate indicia of reliability. Here, repeated subpoenas to the last known address plus family information showing no realistic way to locate the witness support constitutional unavailability. Reliability is satisfied because the testimony was under oath, before a judicial tribunal, with counsel present, and defense counsel actually engaged in significant questioning equivalent to cross-examination.