Also known as: prior testimonies · former testimony
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Testimony given by a witness under oath during an earlier judicial or administrative proceeding. The testimony qualifies for admission at a later trial when the witness is unavailable and the opposing party had an adequate prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness on the same subject matter.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Piper Patel faced trial for fraud after her business partner fled the country. The prosecution offered the partner's sworn testimony from a preliminary hearing where Patel's counsel had conducted cross-examination. The court admitted the transcript once the government proved repeated unsuccessful efforts to locate the partner.
Patrick Phan stood trial for assault. The prosecution sought to introduce a neighbor's detailed account given during a stationhouse interview with detectives. Because Phan had never cross-examined the neighbor and the statement arose from formal questioning, the court excluded the transcript.
Pablo Perez faced charges arising from an alleged assault on his spouse. The state offered a tape-recorded statement the spouse gave to police describing the incident. The court barred the statement because Perez had received no prior opportunity to cross-examine his wife about the account.
Parker Phillips received a grant of immunity and testified before a grand jury about corporate records. Prosecutors later charged him with additional offenses and attempted to use the immunized testimony to locate documents. The court required the government to prove that all evidence came from sources wholly independent of the prior testimony.
Peter Park stood trial for bigamy. After the first wife failed to appear despite service of a subpoena, the prosecution offered her testimony from the earlier proceeding. The court admitted the transcript once the record showed diligent but unsuccessful efforts to secure her presence at the second trial.
Pavel Petrov faced retrial after a mistrial. An eyewitness who had testified at the first trial appeared but could no longer recall key details. The prosecution offered the prior transcript. The court permitted its use because defense counsel had cross-examined the witness during the initial proceeding.
The Confrontation Clause requires both that the witness be unavailable despite good-faith efforts and that the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. Mere incarceration outside the state does not establish unavailability without reasonable efforts to secure attendance. Traditional hearsay exceptions cannot override these constitutional requirements when the statement is testimonial.
Supporting sources
…cases from the early 19th century that took a more stringent view of the right to confrontation than does the Court, prohibiting former testimony even if the witness was subjected to cross-examination. See ante , at 50 (citing Finn v. Commonwealth , 26 Va. 701, 708 (1827); State v. Atkins , 1 Tenn. 229 (Super. L. & Eq. 1807) ( per…
…exist: ex parte in-court testimony or its functional equivalent—that is, material such as affidavits, custodial examinations, prior testimony
…the judgment should not be reversed because secondary evidence was admitted. This brings us to the consideration of what the former testimony was, and the evidence by which it was proven to the jury. It was
…held that the statute imposes an affirmative duty on the prosecution, not merely to show that its evidence is not tainted by the prior testimony
…their areas was of Mexican origin. On the other hand, written material inserted in the record of the Senate hearings included former testimony
Yes. After a witness other than the defendant testifies on direct, the opposing party may move for production of any prior statements in the government's possession that relate to the subject matter of the testimony. A sworn civil deposition transcript constitutes a qualifying statement because it is a verbatim recorded account of the witness's testimony.
Supporting sources
Testimonial statements include prior testimony at a preliminary hearing, before a grand jury, or at a former trial, as well as statements made during formal police interrogations or other proceedings where an objective witness would reasonably expect the statement to be used prosecutorially. Such statements require both unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination before admission against a criminal defendant.
Supporting sources
No. Witness testimony in federal criminal trials must be taken in open court unless a statute or rule authorizes an alternative method. Convenience alone does not justify substituting prior written statements for live testimony subject to cross-examination.
Supporting sources