Michael London - Page 31

                                       - 31 -                                         
             described above.  Petitioners argue that Mr. London is                   
             "unavailable" as a witness in these cases because he                     
             validly claimed his privilege against self-incrimination                 
             under the Fifth Amendment (see rule 804(a)(1) of the                     
             Federal Rules of Evidence), or because he would have                     
             persisted in refusing to testify despite any order of this               
             Court directing him to do so (see rule 804(a)(2) of the                  
             Federal Rules of Evidence).  Accordingly, petitioners argue              
             that Mr. London's deposition is admissible into the record               
             of these cases under rule 804(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of              
             Evidence, which provides an exception to the hearsay rule                
             with respect to former testimony of the declarant.                       
                  Respondent objects to the admission of Mr. London's                 
             deposition into evidence.  Respondent asserts that the                   
             deposition is hearsay for which there is no exception.                   
             Respondent asserts that Mrs. London has not shown her                    
             husband's "unavailability" as a witness within the meaning               
             of that term in rule 804(a) of the Federal Rules of                      
             Evidence.  In this connection, respondent asserts that                   
             Mr. London did not validly claim the Fifth Amendment                     
             privilege against self-incrimination because any criminal                
             prosecution of him is remote or speculative.  Respondent                 
             also asserts that the Court did not order Mr. London to                  

Page:  Previous  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011