Ohio v. Roberts
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
United States v. Inadi also limited Roberts's unavailability requirement, and Giles v. California later criticized its policy-driven approach. All 1007 flagged citations have been read, and the 3 distinct confirmed treatments are listed below; Crawford's duplicate flagged citations are counted once.
5,419 later cases cite Ohio v. Roberts; 1,007 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Ohio v. Roberts?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Overruled in Part
-
The Supreme Court displaced Roberts's judicial-reliability framework for testimonial hearsay, requiring unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination while leaving flexibility for nontestimonial hearsay.
Crawford v. Washington · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
Where nontestimonial hearsay is at issue, it is wholly consistent with the Framers’ design to afford the States flexibility in their development of hearsay law … Roberts … Where testimonial evidence is at issue, however, the Sixth Amendment demands what the common law required: unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination. … Roberts … notwithstanding, we decline to mine the record in search of indicia of reliability. … Where testimonial statements are at … issue, the only indicium of reliability sufficient to satisfy constitutional demands is the one the Constitution actually prescribes: confrontation.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Limited
-
The Supreme Court held that Roberts's unavailability requirement applies to prior testimony, not coconspirator statements.
United States v. Inadi · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
Roberts cannot fairly be read to stand for the radical proposition that no out-of-court statement can be introduced by the government without a showing that the declarant is unavailable.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Criticized
-
The Supreme Court criticized Roberts as a policy-driven regime that allowed judicially created confrontation exceptions without regard to the guarantee's historical understanding.
Giles v. California · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
Having destroyed its own case, the dissent issues a thinly veiled invitation to overrule … Crawford … and adopt an approach not much different from the regime of … Ohio … v. … Roberts … under which the Court would create the exceptions that it thinks consistent with the policies underlying the confrontation guarantee, regardless of how that guarantee was historically understood.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Ohio v. Roberts and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace