Repository Collection 03
Ohio v. Roberts
CASE ENTRY
Last Revised • July 9, 2026
This Source Verification Page documents the United States Supreme Court's decision in Ohio v. Roberts, cited in Claim II of the Supplemental Motion. The decision is relied upon for the constitutional standards governing the admissibility of testimonial hearsay when a declarant is unavailable and the accused has had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
Related SMAR Citation
“In Ohio v. Roberts, 488 U.S. 56 (1980), the Court held such testimonial hearsay can be admitted only if: 1) the declarant was unavailable despite diligence to make him available, and 2) there was prior opportunity for crossexamination”
Case Name
Ohio v. Roberts
Citation
488 U.S. 56 (1980
Date
June 25, 1980
Verification Source
Original United States Supreme Court opinion
Source Location
Library of Congress
Highlighted Pages
57, 63 - 66
Referenced in the Supplemental Motion
Page 52, Paragraph: 107
✔ Original Court Order obtained and reviewed.
✔ Relevant passages highlighted.
✔ Publicly available source
✔ Included within the Source Verification Archive
May's allegation that prosecutors presented testimonial statements attributed to Darrell Godfrey
without producing him as a witness at trial, thereby preventing cross-examination by the defense.
May cites Ohio v. Roberts to support his claim that testimonial hearsay may be admitted only
when the declarant is unavailable despite good-faith efforts to secure his presence and when the
defendant has had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. May relies upon this authority to
argue that Godfrey was available to testify, that no prior opportunity for cross-examination existed,
and that the jury was deprived of hearing evidence that could have impeached Godfrey's credibility
and challenged the State's theory of the case.
Link to the original article.
Working research copy containing the highlighted passages cited in the Supplemental Motion.
Continue browsing the sources cited throughout Claim II.
Return to the main Source Verification Archive and explore additional sections of the Supplemental Motion.
Source Status
Cited to Support
Supporting Documents
Original Article
Highlighted Research Copy
Continue Your Research
Return to Claim II
Return to Source Verification Archive