If the declarant is unavailable, Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1) or a comparable State rule creates a hearsay exception for testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of the same or another proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in interest, had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.

United States v. Thomas, 453 F.3d 838, 844 (7th Cir. 2006) (conviction for being a felon in possession of ammunition; defendant argued that the admission of the tape-recorded 911 call violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation; conviction affirmed; held: "When viewing the facts in light of Davis,...The right of confrontation guaranteed by the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution puts no constraints on the admissibility of nontestimonial hearsay statements; the federal constitutional right of confrontation does not apply to such statements.

United States v. Skelton, 514 F.3d 433, 444-445 (5th Cir. 2008) (conviction for federal extortion offense; accused argued that district court erred in denying him an opportunity to ask specific "did you know" and "have you heard" questions during cross-examination of the Government's rebuttal character...During the cross-examination of a witness -- and during any examination of a witness who is a permissible target for impeachment -- the witness may be asked about specific acts that are indicative of the witness's untruthfulness if such acts are relevant to and probative of the witness' truthfulness or untruthfulness, unless the trial court determines that the acts inquired into are unduly prejudicial.

Cf. United States v. Day, 789 F.2d 1217, 1222-1223 (6th Cir. 1986) (reversing conviction for preparing false income tax returns because the trial court erred in admitting a witness's statement which was "fatally flawed because....A prior inconsistent statement of a witness is admissible, not only to impeach the witness, but also as substantive evidence -- to prove the truth of the matter previously asserted by the witness -- only if the prior consistent statement was made under oath.