Hardy v. Cross, 132 S. Ct. 490

Cross was tried for kidnapping and sexually assaulting A.S.; A.S. testified at first trial but was unavailable at retrial.
State moved to admit A.S.’s prior testimony after declaring she could not be located.
State conducted extensive but imperfect efforts to locate A.S., including home visits, family interviews, and many inquiries with institutions.
Trial court admitted prior testimony, finding state efforts outweighed unavailability; Cross was retried and convicted on sex counts.
Illinois Court of Appeals upheld admission of prior testimony, finding good-faith diligent search; Supreme Court denied certiorari.
Seventh Circuit reversed district court, holding state efforts inadequate under Confrontation Clause precedents; Court granted certiorari and reversed the Seventh Circuit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State’s efforts satisfied unavailability under Confrontation Clause	Cross argues State failed to show good-faith efforts	State argues efforts were reasonable and sufficient	Yes; state court reasonable, not unreasonably applying precedents
Is AEDPA deferential standard satisfied despite perceived additional steps	Cross contends state court erred under Confrontation Clause	State contends deferential review forecloses reversal	Yes; federal court must defer to state court if reasonable under AEDPA

Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 (1968) (witness unavailable unless good-faith effort to obtain presence)
Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980) (good-faith effort to secure presence; reasonableness governs)
California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 (1970) (reasonableness of investigative steps; not required to exhaust all avenues)