Can a defendant cross-examine a witness at a preliminary hearing?

The cross-examination conducted at the prior hearing need not be an exact substitute for cross-examination that would be conducted at trial if the witness were present. (People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 975.) "Frequently, a defendant's

Page 7

motive for cross-examining a witness during a preliminary hearing will differ from his or her motive for cross-examining that witness at trial. For the preliminary hearing testimony of an unavailable witness to be admissible at trial under Evidence Code section 1291, these motives need not be identical, only 'similar.' [Citation.] Admission of the former testimony of an unavailable witness is permitted under Evidence Code section 1291 and does not offend the confrontation clauses of the federal or state Constitutionsnot because the opportunity to cross-examine the witness at the preliminary hearing is considered an exact substitute for the right of cross-examination at trial [citation], but because the interests of justice are deemed served by a balancing of the defendant's right to effective cross-examination against the public's interest in effective prosecution. [Citations.]" (Ibid.) Generally, at both the preliminary hearing and trial, the defendant's underlying interest and motive for cross-examination of a witness for the prosecution are similarto discredit the witness's account of the criminal activity. (People v. Wharton (1991) 53 Cal.3d 522, 590.)