Hearsay Exceptions Requiring Unavailability (FRE 804) and the Confrontation Clause

California Bar Exam Exam

Track your progress as you read

Finished sections get a check mark.

1 Exam Format and Core Skills

California Bar Exam Blueprint: Subjects, Components, and Recent Changes Exam Format, Scoring, and the 1390 Passing Score Essay Strategy: Issue Spotting and IRAC Core Written Skills and Timing Strategy

2 Civil Procedure

Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Federal Question, Diversity, Supplemental, Removal Personal Jurisdiction, Long-Arm, Minimum Contacts, and Service of Process Venue, Transfer, and Forum Non Conveniens The Erie Doctrine and Choice of Law Pleadings, Rule 11, Amendments, and California Demurrers / Anti-SLAPP Joinder of Claims and Parties, Impleader, Intervention, Interpleader Class Actions (Rule 23 and California) Discovery: Scope, Devices, Privilege, and Sanctions Pretrial Adjudication: Dismissals, Default, and Summary Judgment Trial, Jury, Judgment as a Matter of Law, and Post-Trial Motions Appeals, the Final Judgment Rule, and Claim/Issue Preclusion

3 Constitutional Law

Judicial Review, Justiciability, Standing, Ripeness, Mootness, and Political Questions Federal Legislative Power: Commerce, Taxing & Spending, and the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments Separation of Powers: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Authority Federalism, Supremacy, Preemption, the Dormant Commerce Clause, and Privileges & Immunities State Action and Congressional Enforcement of the Reconstruction Amendments Procedural Due Process Substantive Due Process and Fundamental Rights Equal Protection and Levels of Scrutiny First Amendment: Speech, Press, Forums, and Association First Amendment Religion Clauses and the Takings Clause

4 Contracts

Applicable Law: Common Law vs. UCC Article 2 and Mixed Contracts Mutual Assent: Offer, Acceptance, Mailbox Rule, and UCC 2-207 Consideration, Bargained-for Exchange, and Promissory Estoppel Defenses to Formation: Capacity, Mistake, Misrepresentation, Duress, Unconscionability The Statute of Frauds Parol Evidence Rule and Contract Interpretation Conditions and Performance: Express, Constructive, and Substantial Performance Breach, Anticipatory Repudiation, and the Perfect Tender Rule Excuse of Performance: Impossibility, Impracticability, and Frustration UCC Warranties and Risk of Loss Third-Party Beneficiaries, Assignment, and Delegation Contract Remedies and UCC Buyer/Seller Remedies

5 Criminal Law and Procedure

Actus Reus, Mens Rea, Concurrence, and Causation Accomplice Liability and Parties to Crime Inchoate Crimes: Attempt, Conspiracy, and Solicitation Homicide: Murder, Manslaughter, Felony Murder, and California Degrees Other Crimes Against the Person: Assault, Battery, Kidnapping, and Sex Offenses Property and Theft Crimes: Larceny, Embezzlement, Robbery, Burglary, Arson Criminal Defenses: Insanity, Intoxication, Self-Defense, Duress, Necessity, Mistake Fourth Amendment: Searches, Seizures, Warrants, and Exceptions The Exclusionary Rule, Standing, and Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Fifth Amendment: Miranda, Self-Incrimination, and Double Jeopardy Sixth Amendment: Right to Counsel, Confrontation, Speedy Trial, and Jury Pretrial Identifications, the Eighth Amendment, and Trial Rights

6 Evidence

Relevance: Logical and Legal, Rule 403, and California Proposition 8 Policy-Based Exclusions: Subsequent Remedial Measures, Settlements, Insurance, Pleas Authentication and the Best Evidence Rule Witness Competency, Personal Knowledge, and Examination Impeachment of Witnesses Lay and Expert Opinion Testimony (Daubert and California Kelly/Sargon) Character Evidence and Other Acts (MIMIC) Habit and Methods of Proving Character Hearsay: Definition, Non-Hearsay, and Exemptions Hearsay Exceptions: Availability Immaterial (FRE 803) Hearsay Exceptions Requiring Unavailability (FRE 804) and the Confrontation Clause Privileges, Judicial Notice, and Presumptions (Federal and California)

7 Real Property

1.1 Estates in Land 1.2 Future Interests 1.3 Rule Against Perpetuities 1.4 Concurrent Ownership 1.5 Landlord-Tenant Law 1.6 Easements and Servitudes 1.7 Covenants Running with Land 1.8 Recording Acts and Title 1.9 Mortgages 1.10 Land Use Regulation Adverse Possession and Rights Incident to Ownership Land Sale Contracts, Marketable Title, and Risk of Loss Deeds, Delivery, Warranties of Title, and Fixtures

8 Torts

Intentional Torts Against the Person: Battery, Assault, False Imprisonment, IIED Intentional Torts to Property and Defenses/Privileges Negligence: Duty and the Standard of Care Negligence: Breach, Res Ipsa Loquitur, and Negligence Per Se Causation: Actual and Proximate Cause Negligence Damages and Defenses: Comparative Fault and Assumption of Risk Strict Liability: Animals and Abnormally Dangerous Activities Products Liability Private and Public Nuisance Defamation Invasion of Privacy, Misrepresentation, and Economic Torts Vicarious Liability, Joint Tortfeasors, and Immunities

9 Business Associations

Agency: Formation, Actual and Apparent Authority, and Ratification Agency: Principal/Agent Duties, Respondeat Superior, and Tort Liability General Partnerships: Formation, Rights, and Partnership Property Partnership Liability, Fiduciary Duties, Dissociation, and Dissolution Limited Partnerships, LLPs, and LLCs Corporations: Formation, Promoters, and Piercing the Corporate Veil Corporate Finance: Stock, Securities, Dividends, and Distributions Directors and Officers: Fiduciary Duties, the Business Judgment Rule, and Indemnification Shareholders, Derivative Suits, Fundamental Changes, and Federal Securities (10b-5, 16(b))

10 Community Property

General Principles, the Community Estate, and Marital Economic Community Characterization: Separate vs. Community Property and Presumptions Tracing and Commingling (Exhaustion and Direct Tracing) Transmutation and Premarital/Marital Agreements Special Assets: Businesses (Pereira/Van Camp), Goodwill, Education, Pensions, Disability Management, Control, and Spousal Fiduciary Duties Debts and Creditors' Rights Distribution at Dissolution and Death; Quasi-Community Property

11 Professional Responsibility

Regulation of the Profession, Admission, and Discipline (California Rules vs. ABA Model Rules) Competence, Diligence, Communication, and Scope of Representation Confidentiality and Its Exceptions (California vs. ABA) Conflicts of Interest: Current Clients Conflicts: Former Clients, Imputation, and Business Transactions Fees, Client Trust Accounts (IOLTA), and Safekeeping Property Duties to the Court and Third Parties: Candor, Advocacy, and Fairness Forming, Declining, and Terminating the Attorney-Client Relationship Advertising, Solicitation, and the Unauthorized Practice of Law Judicial Ethics, Reporting Misconduct, and Special Prosecutor Duties

12 Remedies

Compensatory Damages: Causation, Foreseeability, Certainty, and Mitigation Punitive, Nominal, and Liquidated Damages Restitution and Unjust Enrichment Constructive Trust and Equitable Lien Injunctions: Temporary Restraining Orders, Preliminary, and Permanent Specific Performance Reformation, Rescission, and Cancellation Equitable Defenses, Declaratory Relief, and Remedy Selection

13 Trusts

Trust Creation, Required Elements, and Types of Trusts Charitable Trusts, Cy Pres, and the Rule Against Perpetuities in Trusts Trustee Powers and Trust Administration Trustee Duties: Loyalty, Prudent Investor, and Impartiality Beneficiary Rights and Principal/Income Allocation Spendthrift, Discretionary, and Support Trusts; Creditors' Rights Modification and Termination of Trusts Breach of Trust, Remedies, and Will Substitutes (Totten, POD, Revocable Trusts)

14 Wills and Succession

Intestate Succession and California Distribution Will Execution and Formalities (Attested and Holographic; California) Testamentary Capacity, Undue Influence, Fraud, Duress, and Mistake Will Components: Integration, Incorporation, Acts of Independent Significance, and Pour-Over Revocation, Revival, and Dependent Relative Revocation Lapse, Anti-Lapse, Class Gifts, Ademption, Abatement, and Exoneration Protection of the Family: Omitted Spouse and Child, Pretermitted Heirs Will Contests, Standing, and No-Contest Clauses Probate Administration, Powers of Appointment, and Will Substitutes

15 Performance Test

The Performance Test: Task Memo, File, and Library Objective PT Products: Memos, Briefs, and Client Letters Persuasive PT Products and 90-Minute Execution

Hearsay Exceptions Requiring Unavailability (FRE 804) and the Confrontation Clause

Key Takeaways Explain This Topic AI

FRE 804(a) defines unavailability (privilege, refusal to testify despite order, lack of memory, death/illness, or absence despite reasonable means to procure attendance); a declarant is NOT unavailable if the proponent wrongfully caused it.

FRE 804(b)(1) former testimony — testimony given at a prior proceeding/deposition, where the party against whom it is now offered (or in a CIVIL case a predecessor in interest) had an opportunity and similar motive to develop it by examination.

FRE 804(b)(2) dying declaration — in a HOMICIDE prosecution or ANY CIVIL case, a statement made by a declarant who believed death was imminent, about its cause or circumstances (declarant need not actually die under the FRE); 804(b)(3) statement against interest (penal/pecuniary/proprietary), with corroboration required when offered to exculpate in a criminal case.

FRE 804(b)(6) forfeiture by wrongdoing — a party who wrongfully caused the declarant's unavailability INTENDING that result forfeits hearsay AND Confrontation objections (Giles requires the intent); FRE 807 residual exception covers trustworthy statements not fitting a categorical exception.

Confrontation Clause (Crawford v. Washington): a TESTIMONIAL out-of-court statement by an unavailable declarant is barred unless the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine; Davis/Bryant: 911/interrogation statements are nontestimonial if the primary purpose is to meet an ONGOING EMERGENCY; Melendez-Diaz/Bullcoming: forensic certificates are testimonial.

Last updated: June 2026

FRE 804(a) lists five ways a declarant is 'unavailable': (1) exempted by a privilege ruling; (2) refusing to testify despite a court order; (3) testifying to not remembering the subject; (4) unable to be present because of death or a then-existing infirmity, physical or mental illness; or (5) absent and the proponent could not procure attendance (and, for some exceptions, testimony) by process or other reasonable means. A party who wrongfully procured the declarant's absence to keep her from testifying cannot claim unavailability.

The four core 804(b) exceptions are: 804(b)(1) former testimony; 804(b)(2) dying declaration; 804(b)(3) statement against interest; and 804(b)(4) statement of personal or family history. 804(b)(6) is forfeiture by wrongdoing.

FRE 804(b)(1) admits testimony given as a witness at a trial, hearing, or lawful deposition, IF it is now offered against a party who had — or, in a civil case, whose PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST had — an opportunity and SIMILAR MOTIVE to develop it by direct, cross, or redirect. Grand jury testimony usually fails because the adverse party had no opportunity to cross-examine. FRE 804(b)(2), the dying declaration, applies only in a HOMICIDE prosecution OR any CIVIL action; the declarant must have spoken while believing death was IMMINENT and the statement must concern the cause or circumstances of the impending death.

Under the FRE the declarant need not actually die, only be unavailable. FRE 804(b)(3), statement against interest, admits a statement so contrary to the declarant's PECUNIARY, PROPRIETARY, or PENAL interest that a reasonable person would not have made it unless true; when offered in a CRIMINAL case to expose the declarant to criminal liability (typically to exculpate the accused), corroborating circumstances must clearly indicate trustworthiness.

Distinguish the statement against interest (non-party declarant, must be unavailable, against interest when made) from a party admission (a party, no unavailability needed, need not be against interest when made).

FRE 804(b)(6) forfeits BOTH the hearsay objection and the Confrontation Clause objection where a party engaged or acquiesced in wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure the declarant's unavailability (Giles v. California requires that the defendant SPECIFICALLY intended to prevent the witness from testifying). FRE 807, the residual exception, admits a hearsay statement not covered by 803 or 804 if it has equivalent guarantees of trustworthiness (supported by the totality and corroboration), is more probative on the point than other reasonably available evidence, and the proponent gives notice.

The CONFRONTATION CLAUSE is independent of and superimposed on hearsay law. Under Crawford v. Washington (2004), a TESTIMONIAL statement of a declarant who does not testify is inadmissible against a criminal defendant unless the declarant is unavailable AND the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine — even if a hearsay exception fits. Davis v. Washington and Michigan v. Bryant: statements to police are NONtestimonial when the primary purpose is to address an ONGOING EMERGENCY (a frantic 911 call), but testimonial when the primary purpose is to establish past facts for later prosecution (a stationhouse interrogation).

Melendez-Diaz and Bullcoming hold that forensic lab certificates are testimonial, so the analyst must testify; Ohio v. Clark suggests young children's statements to teachers and most private-party statements are nontestimonial.

The Confrontation Clause is a constitutional overlay that operates independently of the hearsay rules, so a statement can satisfy a hearsay exception perfectly and still be excluded — or, conversely, fail a hearsay exception yet raise no Confrontation problem. Run the Crawford analysis in disciplined steps. Step one: does the Confrontation Clause even apply? It applies ONLY in CRIMINAL cases, ONLY to statements offered AGAINST the accused, and ONLY when the declarant does not testify at the current trial subject to cross. Step two: is the statement TESTIMONIAL?

Crawford v. Washington (2004) left the term partly undefined but its core includes prior testimony (preliminary hearings, grand jury, former trials) and statements taken during police interrogation directed at establishing past events for use in a later prosecution.

Davis v. Washington and Michigan v. Bryant supply the PRIMARY-PURPOSE test: a statement is NONtestimonial when its primary purpose is to enable police to meet an ONGOING EMERGENCY (a frantic 911 call reporting an in-progress assault), and TESTIMONIAL when the primary purpose is to establish or prove past facts potentially relevant to a later prosecution (a calm stationhouse narration after the threat has passed).

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts and Bullcoming v. New Mexico hold that forensic laboratory CERTIFICATES are testimonial, so the analyst who performed and certified the test must generally testify; Williams v. Illinois fractured on expert reliance on a non-testifying analyst's data.

Ohio v. Clark holds that a young child's statement to a teacher reporting abuse was nontestimonial and that statements to private individuals are much less likely to be testimonial. Step three: if the statement IS testimonial and the declarant does not testify, it is barred UNLESS the prosecution shows the declarant is unavailable AND the defendant had a PRIOR OPPORTUNITY to cross-examine — even if a hearsay exception otherwise fits. Step four: consider FORFEITURE.

Under FRE 804(b)(6) and Giles v. California, a defendant who engaged in wrongdoing SPECIFICALLY INTENDED to render the declarant unavailable (intimidating or killing a witness) forfeits both the hearsay and the Confrontation objection; mere causation of unavailability without that intent does not forfeit. Work a sequence: a domestic-violence victim screams into a 911 line identifying her attacker mid-assault, then later gives a calm written statement at the station, and at trial refuses to testify.

The 911 statement is nontestimonial under Davis (ongoing emergency) and admissible if a hearsay exception like excited utterance fits; the stationhouse written statement is testimonial under Crawford and barred unless the defendant had a prior chance to cross — but if the prosecution proves the defendant threatened her into silence intending exactly that result, Giles forfeiture admits BOTH.

California criminal trials apply Crawford identically because the Sixth Amendment binds the states, and Proposition 8 cannot override it; meanwhile California's own exceptions are broader — CEC 1230 reaches statements exposing the declarant to social disgrace, and CEC 1242's dying-declaration analog applies in ANY criminal or civil case, not just homicide — so on a California criminal essay always run the Crawford testimonial analysis AFTER clearing the hearsay exception.

FRE 803 vs. FRE 804 and the Confrontation Overlay

Feature FRE 803 FRE 804 Confrontation Clause
Unavailability required? No Yes Declarant must be unavailable + no prior cross
Applies to Civil & criminal Civil & criminal Criminal only, against the accused
Trigger Type of statement Type of statement + unavailability Statement is TESTIMONIAL
Key cases Palmer v. Hoffman Giles v. California Crawford, Davis, Bryant, Melendez-Diaz

California's 804-type exceptions require unavailability (CEC 240 defines it). CEC 1230 (declaration against interest) is BROADER than FRE 804(b)(3) because it also covers statements that would subject the declarant to hatred, ridicule, or social disgrace, and it requires unavailability for all uses.

CEC 1242 is California's dying-declaration analog, but it is BROADER than the FRE: it applies in ANY civil OR criminal case (not just homicide), requiring a sense of immediately impending death and a statement about the cause and circumstances — though the declarant must actually have died is NOT required by the code text; California courts apply it across case types. CEC 1291 admits former testimony where the party against whom it is offered had a right and opportunity to cross with a similar interest and motive.

The federal Confrontation Clause applies in California criminal trials identically (Crawford binds state courts), and Proposition 8 cannot override the federal constitutional right. On a CA criminal essay involving an out-of-court accusation, ALWAYS run Crawford after the hearsay analysis.