Brief Fact Summary. John Foster (“Mr. Foster”), a correctional guard, was attacked and beaten. This attack required him to spend one month in the hospital to heal from a head injury and resulted in a severely impaired memory. The first interview with him was unsuccessful, but a subsequent interview found him much improved and able to pick respondent as his attacker out of an array of photographs.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution (“Constitution”) secures to an accused the opportunity to cross examine witnesses against him, not the opportunity to cross examine witnesses in a way that the defense agrees was effective, or productive. For this reason, memory loss of a witness does not violate an accused’s right to cross examine witnesses against him. Second, Federal Rules of Evidence (F.R.E.) Rule 801(d)(1)(C) allows into evidence identifications made by a person after perceiving the person, when that person is available to testify at trial and there is an opportunity to cross examine that witness. For the same reason the Confrontation Clause is not violated, F.R.E. Rule 801(d)(1)(C) is applicable as an exception to F.R.E. Rule 802 in this case.
The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for further consideration in light of Abbott v. United States.View Full Point of Law
Issue. Whether either the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution, or F.R.E. Rule 802 bars testimony concerning a prior, out of court identification when the identifying witness is unable, because of memory loss, to explain the basis of the identification?
Held. No. The Supreme Court agrees with Justice John Harlan’s (“J. Harlan”) concurrence from California v. Green. The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution requires only that the opportunity for effective cross examination be given, not the opportunity for effective in the way that opposing counsel might like – cross-examination.
Dissent. Justice William Brennan (“J. Brennan”) dissents, reasoning that the majority’s opinion reduces the Constitution’s Confrontation Clause to a hollow procedural protection devoid of substance. J. Brennan goes on to argue that the Sixth Amendment requires effective cross examination, and that profound memory loss makes it impossible to engage in the cross examination necessary to show the trier of fact why the testimony is not as probative as other, more reliable, evidence.
Discussion. The majority finds that F.R.E. Rule 801(d)(1)(C) is generally recognized as propping up the belief that out of court identifications are better than in court identifications because they are less suggestive. Even in this case, where the witness suffers from memory loss and did at the time of the out of court identification, the opportunity to cross examine affords defense counsel the opportunity to highlight this loss of memory and argue to the jury that the testimony should be given little weight as a result. It does not rise to the level, however, of requiring exclusion.