Ohio v. Roberts
- Decided
- June 25, 1980
- Docket
- 78-756
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 5,425 timesOverruled (verified)Overruled by Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (verified: Constitution Annotated, Library of Congress) · Crawford v. Washington
What later courts said
- holding that the Confrontation Clause requires that a hearsay exception be firmly rooted and reliable — United States v. Fell (2008)
- holding that competing interests, if closely examined, may justify dispensing with face-to-face confrontation at trial — State v. Foster (1998)
- holding that, under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, an unavailable declarant’s “statement is admissible only if it bears adequate ‘indicia of reliability.’ ” — United States v. Barraza (2009)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*58] Me. Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents issues concerning the constitutional propriety of the introduction in evidence of the preliminary hearing testimony of a witness not produced at the defendant’s subsequent state criminal trial.
I
Cite this
Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980)Read the full opinion
Free account needed
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.