Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) Rule 804(b)(1) - Former testimony

WELCOME to my “Federal Rules of Evidence” program for students interested in the evidentiary rules that govern trials in federal court. "Federal Rules of Evidence" is a series of 12 playlists (with many videos) designed to introduce viewers to the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE), as well as evidentiary concepts and arguments under the FRE. The 12 playlist topics are set out below in this description.
This playlist covers FRE Rules in Article VIII (Hearsay exceptions). This video covers Rule 804(b)(1) - former testimony - and this playlist (organized by FRE rule/concept) features the following videos:
 Rule 803 - the rationale behind the reliability exceptions
 Rules 803(1) & (2). Present sense impressions & Excited utterances
 Rule 803(3). ["Then existing"] State of mind
 Rule 803(4). Statements for medical diagnosis or treatment
 Rule 803(6). Business records
 Rule 803(8). Public records
 Rule 804. Exceptions to the rule against hearsay-unavailability of declarant
 Rule 804(a). Unavailability generally
 Rule 804(b)(1). Former testimony
 Rule 804(b)(2). Dying declaration
 Rule 804(b)(3). Statement against interest
 Rule 804(b)(5). Forfeiture
 Rule 805. Hearsay within hearsay
 Rule 806. Attacking and supporting the declarant’s credibility
 Rule 807. Residual exception
The channel features several videos within each of these 12 playlists:
 Intro to FRE Rules & Concepts *(start here)*
 Articles I & II - General & Judicial Notice.
 Article IV - Relevance & 403
 Article IV - Policy rules
 Article IV - Character evidence
 Article V - Privileges
 Article IV - Witnesses
 Article IV - Impeachment
 Article VII - Opinion testimony
 Article VIII - Hearsay - definition/exemptions
 Article VIII - Hearsay - exceptions
 Articles IX & X - Authentication & Original doc
ABOUT ME:
Professor Wes Porter served as a trial attorney with the Department of Justice's Criminal Division, Fraud Section, in Washington D.C., the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Hawaii and the JAG Corps for the U.S. Navy stationed in the Trial Service Office Pacific. After lecturing and teaching as an adjunct professor for years, he moved to academia full-time teaching courses in Evidence, Criminal Law and Procedure, and skills courses like Trial Advocacy. Professor Porter earned tenure, became a full professor of law, and led a center devoted to evidence, litigation and trial skills training.
Professor Porter still teaches in law schools and trains lawyers new to the profession. To contact Professor Porter with questions or video topic requests, you may email him at [e-mail].
©Wes R. Porter 2020. All rights reserved.

[@ThreeDaysOfDan]

Thanks a lot, My professor made it seem a lot harder than it was .

[@professorporter]

Glad it helped!

[@averyfields9702]

Wow, this was incredibly well discussed, clear, and informative. Thank you for making my life a little bit easier! Keep doing what you're doing!

[@professorporter]

Glad it was helpful!

[@geranasad893]

Doing bar prep for the CA bar. This video was actually quite helpful. Thanks.

[@professorporter]

I’m glad it was helpful. Good luck.

[@theredgiraffe]

Limb (b) of FRE804(b)(1) at 4:58 - who has the opportunity and motive to "develop" the testimony at the prior proceeding? if that's the defendant, why would he want to develop the agent's testimony presumably that would be incriminating against him?

[@professorporter]

The opponent (if a criminal case, it could be the defendant) would have to have the opportunity and motive to CROSS examine the witness. The opponent, at least if skilled at cross, would not develop that direct (presumably harmful) testimony but CROSS.

[@spacecitykid]

helpful, thank u!

[@DOLfirst]

I hope you answer this...probably stupid question. If a defendant in a murder trial takes the stand can the defendant say what the victim said prior to the killing? I am not a law student and am arguing with someone that the defendant WON'T be allowed to say anything that the victim said. They are only allowed to say how the victim made them feel or how the victim expressed the words {angry, threatening(?)} The person I'm arguing with says the victim's words will be allowed. How can that be if the victim is dead and are there exceptions in a self defense case? It just seem logical that the victim's words, which weren't recorded, would be hearsay.

[@professorporter]

The victim’s words most likely won’t be allowed