- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011