> the transcript of Saturday's testimony could have been read to the jury during trial. Obviously that can't happen now I'm not so sure: https://www.law.cornel

> the transcript of Saturday's testimony could have been read to the jury during trial. Obviously that can't happen now I'm not so sure: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/right_to_confront_witness https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/right_to_confront_witness: > In Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 (1968), the Court recognized a common law exception to the Confrontation Clause's requirement when a witness was unavailable and, during previous judicial proceedings, had testified against the same defendant and was subject to cross-examination by that defendant. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this exception in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), holding that "the Framers would not have allowed admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination." Further, the Court in Crawford overturned Ohio v. Roberts (above). The article said he was cross-examined by Boeing's attorneys last week and he now unavailable because he's dead, so it seems to be his deposition would fall under this exception.