Rule 804(b)(1)

George Reynolds, a longtime member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, was indicted in the District Court of the third judicial district of the Territory of Utah for bigamy after entering a second marriage to Amelia Jane Schofield while his first wife remained alive. Reynolds had obtained permission from recognized church authorities to contract the polygamous marriage. He and other male church members believed the practice was a religious duty enjoined by divine revelation to Joseph Smith. Refusal would bring damnation when circumstances permitted. The grand jury that returned the indictment consisted of fifteen persons under a territorial statute. This differed from the sixteen to twenty-three persons required by federal statute for United States circuit and district courts. During voir dire, the trial court overruled Reynolds's challenges for cause to prospective jurors including Charles Read who stated they had formed opinions about the case. The court sustained government challenges to other prospective jurors who were or had been living in polygamy. At trial the prosecution offered the transcript of testimony given by Amelia Jane Schofield at an earlier prosecution of Reynolds for the same offense under a different indictment. The government showed that subpoenas were served at Reynolds's house. An officer was told the witness was not at home. Reynolds declined to disclose her location. A later subpoena with the correct name also failed to locate her. Reynolds had been present and able to cross-examine at the prior trial but offered no explanation for her absence. Reynolds requested a jury instruction that he must be acquitted if the jury found he acted in the sincere belief that the second marriage fulfilled a religious duty. The court refused and instead instructed that religious belief could not excuse a knowing violation of the criminal law. The court further instructed the jury to consider the consequences of polygamy for innocent women and children. Reynolds was convicted and the case reached the Supreme Court of the United States on writ of error.

On August 5, 1999, Michael Crawford stabbed Kenneth Lee in the torso during a confrontation at Lee's apartment. Crawford and his wife Sylvia had gone there after Sylvia alleged that Lee had attempted to rape her several weeks earlier. Lee was taken to the hospital and later died from his wounds. Police arrested both Crawford and Sylvia that night. Detectives gave Miranda warnings and interrogated Sylvia twice at the station house. In her recorded statement Sylvia initially denied involvement but eventually admitted she had led Crawford to Lee's apartment and had seen the stabbing. Crawford also gave police a statement describing the events and his belief that Lee may have reached for something before the stabbing. At trial Crawford asserted self-defense, but Sylvia did not testify because of Washington's marital privilege. The State offered Sylvia's tape-recorded statement as evidence that the stabbing was not in self-defense and invoked the hearsay exception for statements against penal interest. The trial court admitted the statement after finding it bore particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. The jury convicted Crawford of assault. The Washington Court of Appeals reversed after applying a nine-factor test and concluding the statement lacked sufficient indicia of reliability. The Washington Supreme Court reinstated the conviction. It determined that Sylvia's statement interlocked with Crawford's statement and therefore bore adequate guarantees of trustworthiness, noting that both accounts were ambiguous on whether Lee had possessed a weapon. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

In January 1975, local police in Lake County, Ohio, arrested Herschel Roberts and charged him with forgery of a check in the name of Bernard Isaacs and with possession of stolen credit cards belonging to Isaacs and his wife Amy. A preliminary hearing took place on January 10 in Municipal Court, where the prosecution presented several witnesses including Mr. Isaacs. Roberts's appointed counsel called Anita Isaacs, the daughter of the Isaacs, as the defense's sole witness. Anita testified that she knew Roberts and had allowed him to use her apartment for several days while she was away, but she denied giving him her parents' checks or credit cards. Defense counsel questioned her extensively in an attempt to obtain an admission that she had provided the items without permission, though she maintained her denial, and the prosecutor did not examine her. A county grand jury later indicted Roberts for forgery, receiving stolen property, and possession of heroin, after which new counsel was appointed for him. Between November 1975 and March 1976, the State issued five subpoenas to Anita at her parents' Ohio residence for four different trial dates, with the last three including instructions that she should call before appearing. Anita did not respond to the subpoenas or appear at the March 1976 trial in the Court of Common Pleas. At trial, Roberts testified that Anita had given him her parents' checkbook and credit cards with permission to use them. The State then offered the transcript of Anita's preliminary hearing testimony pursuant to an Ohio statute allowing use of such testimony when a witness cannot be produced. During a voir dire hearing on the transcript's admissibility, Amy Isaacs testified that Anita had left home for Tucson, Arizona, shortly after the preliminary hearing. She described limited contacts, including a welfare application in San Francisco about a year before trial that led to one phone call, and another call seven or eight months before trial in which Anita said she was traveling outside Ohio. Mrs. Isaacs stated she had no way to reach Anita in an emergency and knew of no one who knew her location. The trial court admitted the transcript, and the jury convicted Roberts on all counts. The Ohio Court of Appeals reversed the convictions after reviewing the voir dire evidence, concluding that the prosecution had not made a good-faith effort to secure Anita's attendance at trial. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the reversal but on different grounds, determining that while Anita was unavailable, the preliminary hearing testimony did not satisfy the requirements for admission under the Confrontation Clause because defense counsel had not actually cross-examined her there. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the constitutional issues raised by the admission of the testimony.