also attempted to identify and locate Garrott’s friends, and searched for Garrott’s name in police and Department of Motor Vehicle records. Ex. G at 23; see also RT at 781, 789, 791. In light of these facts, the Court of Appeal concluded that Garrott was “unavailable” despite the prosecution’s “good faith” and “reasonable” efforts to locate her. Ex. G at 24. The Court of Appeal’s conclusion is neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, the Supreme Court’s legal standard regarding witness unavailability. Of the Supreme Court’s three leading cases involving witness availability, the Government’s efforts to locate Garrott are most like the efforts in Roberts, where the Court approved of the prosecution’s actions. Compare Roberts, 448 U.S. at 75-77, 100 S.Ct. 2531 (<HOLDING>), with Barber, 390 U.S. at 723, 88 S.Ct. 1318
holding that effort to locate witness was reasonable where inter alia the prosecutions investigator checked police records and attempted to locate witness at his home and his parents home recognizing that because parents have a constitutional right to direct their childrens education organization has standing to bring claim on behalf of parents recognizing emotional bond between foster parents and child although ultimately determining foster parents did not have rights of parents in dependency action under chapter 2644 rcw holding that child cannot consent to search of parents bedroom holding that search was reasonable where the prosecutor contacted witnesss parents on multiple occasions and issued subpoenas for the witness at the parents home