Page:United States Reports 502 OCT. TERM 1991.pdf/513

 502us2$25H 01-22-99 08:28:07 PAGES OPINPGT

Cite as: 502 U. S. 346 (1992)

355

Opinion of the Court

Many declarants will be subpoenaed by the prosecution or defense, regardless of any Confrontation Clause requirement, while the Compulsory Process Clause 7 and evidentiary rules permitting a defendant to treat witnesses as hostile will aid defendants in obtaining a declarant’s live testimony. Id., at 396–398. And while an unavailability rule would therefore do little to improve the accuracy of factfinding, it is likely to impose substantial additional burdens on the factfinding process. The prosecution would be required to repeatedly locate and keep continuously available each declarant, even when neither the prosecution nor the defense has any interest in calling the witness to the stand. An additional inquiry would be injected into the question of admissibility of evidence, to be litigated both at trial and on appeal. Id., at 398–399. These observations, although expressed in the context of evaluating co-conspirator statements, apply with full force to the case at hand. We note first that the evidentiary rationale for permitting hearsay testimony regarding spontaneous declarations and statements made in the course of receiving medical care is that such out-of-court declarations are made in contexts that provide substantial guarantees of their trustworthiness.8 But those same factors that contribute to 7 “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right. . . to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.” U. S. Const., Amdt. 6. 8 Indeed, it is this factor that has led us to conclude that “firmly rooted” exceptions carry sufficient indicia of reliability to satisfy the reliability requirement posed by the Confrontation Clause. See Idaho v. Wright, 497 U. S. 805, 817, 820–821 (1990); Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U. S. 171, 182–184 (1987). There can be no doubt that the two exceptions we consider in this case are “firmly rooted.” The exception for spontaneous declarations is at least two centuries old, see 6 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 1747, p. 195 (J. Chadbourn rev. 1976), and may date to the late 17th century. See Thompson v. Trevanion, 90 Eng. Rep. 179 (K. B. 1694). It is currently recognized under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2), and in nearly four-fifths of the States. See Brief for State of California et al. as Amici Curiae 15–16, n. 4 (collecting state statutes and cases). The exception