State v. Diehl

In support of his argument that the reversal of his convictions should be affirmed, appellee contends that (1) the state improperly used McGhee’s grand jury testimony as substantive evidence of appellee’s guilt, and (2) the introduction of McGhee’s grand jury testimony violated appellee’s Sixth Amendment1 right of confrontation.

Under controlling Ohio law at the time of the trial of this cause,2 the condition precedent to the right of a party to cross-examine its own witness concerning a prior statement made by him that varies with the witness’ current testimony is that the party be taken by…