This law defines what constitutes 'former testimony' for legal purposes. It refers to any testimony given under oath in specific situations: during another legal action or a previous trial, in proceedings by a U.S. or public agency, in depositions compliant with legal standards, or in arbitration if there's a verbatim transcript. Essentially, it's testimony taken from past official legal processes that can be used again in court.

This law says that if a person who originally gave testimony is not available to testify again, their past testimony can still be used in court even though it’s hearsay. This can happen if the testimony is used against someone who originally presented it or their successor, or if the person it’s used against was also part of the original trial and had a chance to question the witness.

When using this past testimony, it must still follow the same rules and limitations as if the person was testifying in person. However, you can’t object to how questions were asked back then if you didn’t object at the time, and you can't use objections related to the witness's competence or privilege if those weren't issues at the time of the original testimony.

This law says that you can use someone's previous testimony in a civil case even if they're not available to testify in person now. For this to be allowed, three conditions need to be met: first, the person who originally gave the testimony can't be a witness now; second, the testimony is being used in a civil case; and third, the person who originally had the chance to question the witness had a similar reason to question them as the current party does.

Additionally, while such testimony is generally treated like live testimony when it comes to permissible objections and limitations, you cannot bring up objections related to the witness's competency or privilege if those weren't issues during the original testimony.

This law states that testimony given by a minor who is the alleged victim during a preliminary hearing can be used in court even if it's hearsay, under certain conditions. Specifically, it can be used if it's part of proceedings to decide if the minor should be made a dependent of the court. For the testimony to be admissible, the issues in both the preliminary hearing and the dependency proceedings must be similar, giving the accused the chance to cross-examine the minor with comparable interest and motive. Any objections to this testimony need to follow the same rules as if the minor were testifying in person. If there are new, substantially different issues in the dependency proceeding, the testimony's admissibility can be challenged. This rule only applies to testimonies given after January 1, 1990.

This law says that if a witness made statements in a previous legal proceeding, like a trial or a hearing, and those statements don't match what they're saying now, you can use the earlier statements as evidence even if the witness can’t testify now. This is true as long as their earlier testimony is also being used. You can use recordings or written transcripts from those earlier proceedings as evidence. Plus, the opposing side has the right to question anyone who gave evidence at those previous hearings about these inconsistent statements.