witness at another hearing in Connecticut

2020The defendant further claimed that the admission of Parks’ former testimony would violate his sixth amendment right of confrontation pursuant to Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 68-69, 124 S. Ct. 1354 , 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004).

2020The defendant further claimed that the admission of Parks’ former testimony would violate his sixth amendment right of confrontation pursuant to Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 68-69, 124 S. Ct. 1354 , 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004).

2016A prior inconsistent statement of a witness, provided (A) the statement is in writing or otherwise recorded by audiotape, videotape, or some other equally reliable medium, (B) the writing or recording is duly authenticated as that of the witness, and (C) the witness has personal knowledge of the contents of the statement...." Section 8-7 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence provides: "Hearsay within hearsay is admissible only if each part of the combined statements is independently admissible under a hearsay exception." State v. Whelan, 200 Conn. 743 , 753, 513 A.2d 86 , cert. denied, 479 U.S.

2016A prior inconsistent statement of a witness, provided (A) the statement is in writing or otherwise recorded by audiotape, videotape, or some other equally reliable medium, (B) the writing or recording is duly authenticated as that of the witness, and (C) the witness has personal knowledge of the contents of the statement...." Section 8-7 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence provides: "Hearsay within hearsay is admissible only if each part of the combined statements is independently admissible under a hearsay exception." State v. Whelan, 200 Conn. 743 , 753, 513 A.2d 86 , cert. denied, 479 U.S.

2016A prior inconsistent statement of a witness, provided (A) the statement is in writing or otherwise recorded by audiotape, videotape, or some other equally reliable medium, (B) the writing or recording is duly authenticated as that of the witness, and (C) the witness has personal knowledge of the contents of the statement...." Section 8-7 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence provides: "Hearsay within hearsay is admissible only if each part of the combined statements is independently admissible under a hearsay exception." State v. Whelan, 200 Conn. 743 , 753, 513 A.2d 86 , cert. denied, 479 U.S.

2016A prior inconsistent statement of a witness, provided (A) the statement is in writing or otherwise recorded by audiotape, videotape, or some other equally reliable medium, (B) the writing or recording is duly authenticated as that of the witness, and (C) the witness has personal knowledge of the contents of the statement...." Section 8-7 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence provides: "Hearsay within hearsay is admissible only if each part of the combined statements is independently admissible under a hearsay exception." State v. Whelan, 200 Conn. 743 , 753, 513 A.2d 86 , cert. denied, 479 U.S.

2009Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, provided (A) the issues in the former hearing are the same or substantially similar to those in the *595 hearing in which the testimony is being offered, and (B) the party against whom the testimony is now offered had an opportunity to develop the testimony in the former hearing. ...” 2 In State v. Golding, supra, 213 Conn. 233 , our Supreme Court concluded that “a defendant can prevail on a claim of constitutional error not preserved at trial only if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the record i

2004As we stated in State v. Joyner, 255 Conn. 477 , 491 n.19, 774 A.2d 927 (2001), “[t]he confrontation clause demands that where prior testimony is admitted at a later proceeding, the party against whom the testimony is admitted must have had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness at the earlier proceeding sufficient to endow the testimony as a whole with some indicia of reliability . . . .” 40 (Internal quotation marks omitted.) See also United States v. Wingate, 520 F.2d 309, 316 (2d Cir. 1975) (“[testimony given at a pretrial or at a previous hearing by a presently unavailable witness is

2004As we stated in State v. Joyner, 255 Conn. 477 , 491 n.19, 774 A.2d 927 (2001), “[t]he confrontation clause demands that where prior testimony is admitted at a later proceeding, the party against whom the testimony is admitted must have had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness at the earlier proceeding sufficient to endow the testimony as a whole with some indicia of reliability . . . .” 40 (Internal quotation marks omitted.) See also United States v. Wingate, 520 F.2d 309, 316 (2d Cir. 1975) (“[testimony given at a pretrial or at a previous hearing by a presently unavailable witness is