CA9: unavailability explained

Ninth Circuit blog points to United States v. Yida, __ F.3d. __, No. 06-10460, 2007 WL 2325143 (9th Cir. Aug. 16, 2007), which explains the “unavailability” requirement of FRE 804(a)(4) and (a)(5).  Essentially, the government doesn’t get to introduce deposition testimony when it let the witness it intended to rely upon at trial go (based on a promise to come back to the US).   

• The other blog with a similar name comments here.
• California Appellate Report comments here.