context: We do not discuss the admbsibility of any hearsay that might be contained in the test protocols prepared by Dr. Gibbs, since we hold the court had sufficient grounds to exclude Dr. Smith's testimony when Clifford's attorney refused to produce the protocols for inspection by the government prior to Dr. Smith's testimony before the jury. We do note, though, that hearsay evidence against a criminal defendant may raise question of the defendant's constitutional right to confront witnesses.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 783 F.2d 1101, 1101
citation_a.parenthetical: stating that expert's recounting of statements by codefendants did not violate confrontation clause because statements were not introduced for truth of matter asserted and declarant testified at trial
citation_a.sentence: See Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980) (holding that hearsay evidence does not violate the confrontation clause if declarant is unavailable and it “bears adequate ‘indicia of reliability”’); Wright, 251 U.S.App.D.C. at 286, 783 F.2d at 1101 (stating that expert’s recounting of statements by codefendants did not violate confrontation clause because statements were not introduced for truth of matter asserted and declarant testified at trial); cf. Bryan v. John Bean Div. of FMC Corp., 566 F.2d 541, 545 (5th Cir.1978) (holding that “otherwise hearsay evidence disclosing the basis of an expert witness’ opinion should be admissible if ... the impeaching evidence has sufficient guarantee of reliability that the prophylactic effect of the hearsay rule is not necessary to ensure trustworthiness”).
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 566 F.2d 541, 545
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that "otherwise hearsay evidence disclosing the basis of an expert witness' opinion should be admissible if ... the impeaching evidence has sufficient guarantee of reliability that the prophylactic effect of the hearsay rule is not necessary to ensure trustworthiness"
citation_b.sentence: See Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980) (holding that hearsay evidence does not violate the confrontation clause if declarant is unavailable and it “bears adequate ‘indicia of reliability”’); Wright, 251 U.S.App.D.C. at 286, 783 F.2d at 1101 (stating that expert’s recounting of statements by codefendants did not violate confrontation clause because statements were not introduced for truth of matter asserted and declarant testified at trial); cf. Bryan v. John Bean Div. of FMC Corp., 566 F.2d 541, 545 (5th Cir.1978) (holding that “otherwise hearsay evidence disclosing the basis of an expert witness’ opinion should be admissible if ... the impeaching evidence has sufficient guarantee of reliability that the prophylactic effect of the hearsay rule is not necessary to ensure trustworthiness”).