United States v. Owens

Supreme Court of the United States · 1988 · Evidence

484 U.S. 554 (1988)

Updated August 1, 2026

Evidencememory-impaired witnessConfrontation ClauseSixth AmendmentRule 802Rule 801(d)(1)(C)prior identificationhearsay

Facts

After a correctional counselor was beaten in federal prison, his injuries severely impaired his memory. An FBI agent first found him unable to remember his attacker's name, but later, after improvement, the victim named respondent and identified him from a photo array. At trial, the victim remembered making that identification but admitted on cross-examination that he could not remember seeing his assailant and could not remember whether hospital visitors had suggested respondent's name. The prosecution introduced testimony about the prior out-of-court identification.

Issue

Whether the Confrontation Clause or Federal Rule of Evidence 802 bars testimony about a witness's prior out-of-court identification when the witness testifies at trial but, because of memory loss, cannot explain the basis for the identification.

Rule

Neither the Confrontation Clause nor Rule 802 bars admission of a prior identification when the declarant testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, even if memory loss prevents the witness from recalling the basis for the identification. The Confrontation Clause guarantees only an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way or to whatever extent the defense might wish.

🔒

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 Phoenix, Nora Kim was assaulted outside a bus depot. Two days later, she identified Devin Cole in a photo lineup, but by the time of trial she testified under oath that she remembered selecting his photo yet could no longer remember the attacker's face or what led her to choose him; she answered all questions from both sides.

Over a Sixth Amendment and hearsay objection, should the trial court admit testimony about Nora's prior identification?

Explanation. The majority held that neither the Confrontation Clause nor Rule 802 bars admission of a prior identification when the witness testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, even though memory loss prevents the witness from explaining the basis for the identification. The Constitution guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination effective in whatever way the defense prefers.