Also known as: subject to cross examination · subjected to cross-examination · cross-examinable
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural requirement that a witness who previously made an out-of-court statement must appear at trial, testify under oath, and answer questions about the statement.
Seth Shapiro testified at trial that he never saw loose planking. Jasper's counsel confronted him with a recorded interview in which Seth identified the safety manager as the person who overruled safety requests. Seth answered questions about the interview on cross-examination, allowing the court to admit the statement for its truth.
Sophia Singh identified the defendant in a lineup shortly after the robbery. At trial she testified she could not recall the basis for her identification. Because Sophia remained available to answer questions about the lineup statement, the court admitted the identification as nonhearsay.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Spencer Silver faced an enhanced sentence based on a factual finding that he had committed the offense with a biased purpose. The judge relied on an affidavit describing the bias. Because the affiant never appeared for cross-examination, the enhancement violated the requirement that contested facts be subject to cross-examination.
Sebastian Santos called 911 while an assault was still underway. The dispatcher questioned him after the assailant fled. Because Sebastian testified at trial and answered questions about his statements, the court treated them as subject to cross-examination and admitted the nontestimonial portions.
Sierra Santos offered a lab report through a health inspector who had not performed the testing. The actual analyst never appeared. Because the analyst was not subject to cross-examination about the report, the court excluded the testimonial statements.
Skylar Sullivan's prosecutor repeatedly noted that the defendants had not taken the stand to explain certain evidence. The comments highlighted the absence of testimony subject to cross-examination. The court held the remarks violated the defendants' rights because they penalized the choice not to become subject to cross-examination.
The declarant must take the stand at trial, testify under oath, and answer questions concerning the prior statement. This requirement applies to all three categories of prior statements excluded from hearsay under Rule 801(d)(1).
Supporting sources
No. A witness remains subject to cross-examination even if the witness cannot recall the basis for an earlier identification, provided the witness is placed on the stand and answers questions about the statement.
Supporting sources
It ensures the defendant has an opportunity to test the declarant's credibility and the circumstances of the statement. When the declarant testifies and answers questions, admission of the prior statement satisfies the confrontation right.
Supporting sources
The prior statement must be inconsistent with the trial testimony, given under penalty of perjury, and the declarant must be subject to cross-examination about it at the current trial. Only then is the statement admissible for its truth.
Supporting sources
…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 curiam )). Nor was the English law at the time of the…