Also known as:FRE 804 · Fed. R. Evid. 804 · Rule 804
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A rule of evidence that permits admission of hearsay statements when the declarant is unavailable as a witness under specified conditions. The rule lists categories of unavailability and enumerates exceptions including former testimony, dying declarations, statements against interest, statements of personal or family history, and statements offered against a party that wrongfully caused the declarant's unavailability.
See Our Sources
How its tested
Common Examples
6
Proponent Seeks Attendance Abroad
Fiona Foster offers a transcript of a deposition taken in an administrative proceeding. The deponent now lives overseas and ignores a trial subpoena. Foster's counsel attempted service through diplomatic channels and letters rogatory without success. The court finds the deponent unavailable because the proponent could not procure attendance by reasonable means.
Self-Inculpatory Remarks Only
Francois Fortier offers a witness statement in which the declarant admitted personally falsifying records but also blamed a supervisor for directing the falsification. The court admits only the portions describing the declarant's own conduct because those remarks are genuinely against the declarant's penal interest. The supervisor-blaming remarks are excluded.
Felicity French offers a statement under the statement-against-interest exception. The declarant resides abroad and refuses to return despite health-related excuses. French attempted service through formal international channels without success. The court finds the declarant unavailable because the proponent could not procure testimony by reasonable means.
Ongoing Emergency Statement
Fatima Flores offers a 911 recording made during an assault. The caller described the attack while the assailant remained nearby and police had not yet arrived. The court admits the recording because the statements were made during an ongoing emergency rather than to establish past facts for later prosecution.
Davis v. Washington547 U.S. 813 (2006)
On February 1, 2001, Michelle McCottry placed a 911 call reporting that her former boyfriend Adrian Davis was beating her with his fists inside her house. The 911 operator asked a series of questions about the location, whether weapons were involved, whether Davis had been drinking, his full name and middle initial, and his current actions. McCottry answered that Davis had just run out the door and was leaving in a car.
Police arrived within four minutes, observed fresh injuries on McCottry's face and forearm along with her shaken state, and noted her efforts to gather her belongings and children. Davis was charged with felony violation of a domestic no-contact order. At trial McCottry did not appear, and the court admitted the 911 recording over Davis's Confrontation Clause objection, leading to his conviction, which the Washington Court of Appeals and Supreme Court affirmed.
On February 26, 2003, police responded late at night to a reported domestic disturbance at the home of Hershel and Amy Hammon. Upon arrival Amy Hammon appeared somewhat frightened on the front porch but initially stated nothing was the matter. After officers entered and separated the couple, one officer questioned Amy in the living room while the other stayed with Hershel in the kitchen. Amy described a verbal argument that became physical, including Hershel breaking the furnace, lamps, and phone, shoving her into broken glass, and punching her in the chest. Amy then completed and signed a battery affidavit stating those events.
Hershel was charged with domestic battery and probation violation. At his bench trial Amy did not appear, and the court admitted the officer's recounting of her statements as excited utterances along with the affidavit over objection. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed Hershel's convictions, and the Indiana Supreme Court held Amy's oral statements nontestimonial while finding the affidavit testimonial but its admission harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in both Davis v. Washington and the consolidated Hammon v. Indiana cases to address the testimonial character of the statements. The evidence introduced at each trial consisted solely of the out-of-court statements, as neither victim appeared to testify and no other witnesses could identify the assailant or describe the cause of the injuries.
Floyd Franklin offers a witness statement after the defendant threatened the declarant into leaving the jurisdiction. The court finds the defendant wrongfully caused the declarant's unavailability with intent to prevent testimony. The statement is admitted against the defendant despite the hearsay bar.
Giles v. California554 U.S. 353 (2008)
On September 29, 2002, Dwayne Giles shot his ex-girlfriend Brenda Avie six times outside the garage of his grandmother’s house.
Giles’ niece heard the two speaking in conversational tones before Avie yelled “Granny” several times and a series of gunshots sounded. Giles’ niece and grandmother ran outside and saw Giles standing near Avie with a gun in his hand. Avie had not been carrying a weapon. Giles fled the scene and was apprehended by police about two weeks later.
Three weeks before the shooting, Avie spoke to a police officer responding to a domestic-violence report. Avie, who was crying, told the officer that Giles had accused her of having an affair, grabbed her by the shirt, lifted her off the floor, choked her, punched her in the face and head, and threatened her with a folding knife. At trial, prosecutors sought to introduce these statements. Over Giles’ objection, the trial court admitted them under California Evidence Code section 1370.
Giles testified that he had acted in self-defense. He described Avie as jealous and violent, said she had threatened to kill him and his new girlfriend on the day of the shooting, and claimed she charged at him before he fired. A jury convicted Giles of first-degree murder. While Giles’ appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Crawford v. Washington. The California Court of Appeal held that admission of Avie’s statements did not violate the Confrontation Clause because Giles had forfeited his confrontation right by committing the murder. The California Supreme Court affirmed on the same ground. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Falcon Dynamics offers a third-party confession that another person committed the charged acts. The declarant later recanted and invoked the Fifth Amendment. The court admits the confession because excluding it would violate due process given its reliability and the declarant's unavailability.
Chambers v. Mississippi410 U.S. 284 (1973)
The events that led to Leon Chambers' prosecution occurred on Saturday evening, June 14, 1969, in the small town of Woodville, Mississippi. Two Woodville policemen entered a local bar and pool hall to execute a warrant for the arrest of C. C. Jackson. Jackson resisted and a hostile crowd of some 50 or 60 persons gathered. During the commotion five or six pistol shots were fired. Officer Liberty was shot several times in the back. Liberty fired both barrels of his riot gun into an alley and hit Leon Chambers in the back of the head and neck.
Chambers' friends James Williams, Berkley Turner, and Gable McDonald transported the wounded Chambers to the hospital. Chambers was subsequently charged with Liberty's murder. He pleaded not guilty and has asserted his innocence throughout.
In November 1969 Gable McDonald gave a sworn confession to Chambers' attorneys admitting that he shot Officer Liberty with his .22-caliber revolver. One month later at a preliminary hearing McDonald repudiated his prior sworn confession. He testified that Reverend Stokes had persuaded him to confess and had promised that he would not go to jail and would share in the proceeds of a lawsuit Chambers would bring against the town of Woodville.
At trial in October of the following year after a change of venue to Amite County Chambers called McDonald as a witness and introduced the sworn confession into evidence. The trial court denied Chambers' request to examine McDonald as an adverse witness under the voucher rule. Chambers attempted to introduce the testimony of Sam Hardin, Berkley Turner, and Albert Carter regarding McDonald's additional confessions to them but the court excluded this evidence as hearsay. The jury convicted Chambers of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether petitioner's trial was conducted in accord with principles of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
What makes a declarant unavailable under Rule 804(a)?
A declarant is unavailable when exempted by privilege, refuses to testify despite a court order, testifies to a lack of memory, cannot attend because of death or infirmity, or is absent and the proponent cannot procure attendance or testimony by reasonable means. The rule does not apply if the proponent wrongfully caused the unavailability.
Supporting sources
Does Rule 804(b)(3) admit an entire narrative or only self-inculpatory parts?
The exception admits only those discrete remarks that are genuinely self-inculpatory. Portions that merely incriminate another person remain inadmissible even if embedded in an overall inculpatory statement.
Supporting sources
When does forfeiture by wrongdoing allow admission under Rule 804(b)(6)?
A statement is admissible against a party that wrongfully caused or acquiesced in causing the declarant's unavailability with intent to prevent testimony. The proponent must show the wrongful conduct by a preponderance of the evidence.
Supporting sources
547 U.S. 813 (2006)
…right to confrontation. We take no position on the standards necessary to demonstrate such forfeiture, but federal courts using Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6), which codifies the forfeiture doctrine, have generally held the Government to the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, see, e. g. , United States v. Scott , 284 F. 3d 758, 762…