Fed.Ev.Rule 804(b)(1), as "former testimony", there is no notice requirement. Compare N.J.Ev.Rule 64, which allows the trial judge to exclude "prior testimony" otherwise allowed under N.J.Ev.Rule 63(3), if notice of the intention to offer was not made known to the adverse party "at such time as to provide him with a fair opportunity to meet it."
Because of the sustaining of the claims of right to refuse to answer, each witness is, at this point, "unavailable as a witness", under the definition in Fed.Ev.Rule 804(a)(1). As was observed in the ruling when the claims were sustained, this status is necessarily "for the time being"; it is a potentially evanescent status. Any party remains free, before trial has ended, to subpoena one or the other or both of these witnesses again, or for the first time. The Fifth Amendment claim, even when valid, does not bar issuance and service of a subpoena or excuse compliance with its command. For all the court can tell, such a witness may, if called hereafter, not claim his right under the Fifth Amendment, or may answer one or more questions sufficiently to amount to a waiver of the right (compare N.J.Ev.Rule 37, allowing a witness to answer some questions without waiving the right to claim privilege as to others), or may be ordered to answer in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 6001, et seq., in which case his testimony at trial, or its fruits, may not be used against him. These observations were noted to make clear that the ruling on "unavailability" was based on the facts as they stood then, and that the ruling might be different in the future if the facts changed.
The court has examined the Grand Jury transcripts involved, and concludes that there is nothing in them from which it can possibly find that they have circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness equivalent to those implicit in the express exceptions to the hearsay rule under Fed.Ev.Rules 803 and 804. This is particularly so since testimony at trial which is different than that before the Grand Jury would expose the witness to the jeopardy of a charge of perjury or false swearing, 18 U.S.C. § 1621, § 1623. None of the documents can be offered, for this reason, under either Fed.Ev.Rule 803(24) or 804(b)(5).
The question remaining is whether they can be offered under Fed.Ev.Rule 804(b)(1), as "testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same . . . proceeding . . . if the party against whom the testimony is now offered . .. had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct . . . examination".
Under the circumstances of this case, and without in any way implying any broad or general rule applicable in all instances, the court is satisfied that a defendant here may offer in evidence the Grand Jury testimony in question. It may be true that the Grand Jury proceeding dealt with more than the subject-matter of the present indictment and that, in fact, it may be continuing even now into other aspects. Even so, that much of it as dealt with the present indictment must be recognized as being "another hearing of the same . . . proceeding", because the hearsay would be offered against the United States, the same party which had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct examination.
In fact, when a witness inculpates an accused before the Grand Jury, and then testifies differently at trial, the Grand Jury testimony may be offered by the United States as part of its evidence in chief. Such a statement is not hearsay, under Fed.Ev.Rule 801(d)(1)(A), so long as the witness testifies at trial and is available for cross-examination.
However, while a defendant may offer the Grand Jury testimony under Fed.Ev.Rule 804(b)(1), the court does not now rule on admissibility. That is a matter to be decided when the offer in evidence is made, and may be controlled by considerations not now known. All the court decides now is that by reason of the exception noted, the prior testimony is not barred on the ground that it is hearsay, under Fed.Ev.Rule 802.
Further, it is noted that the court makes no ruling now on the potential application of Fed.Ev.Rule 106, in the event only part of the prior testimony be offered, or of Fed.Ev.Rule 806, dealing with the credibility of a hearsay declarant, or of any other applicable law.