page_title: Washington v. Texas
section_title: Opinion of the Court
hierarchical_section_title: Washington v. Texas / Opinion of the Court
caption_attribution_description: English: Undated photograph of en:Chief Justice of the United States Earl Warren. Photo by Harris &amp; Ewing photography firm, whose works have all lapsed into the public domain.[1]
context_page_description: Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided that the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution is applicable in state courts as well as federal courts. Jackie Washington had attempted to call his co-defendant as a witness, but was blocked by Texas courts because state law prevented co-defendants from testifying for each other, under the theory that they would be likely to lie for each other on the stand.
  The Supreme Court reasoned that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment made the right to be able to compel defense witnesses to testify necessary for a defendant's "due process" rights to fair proceedings, which applies to the states. Only Justice John Marshall Harlan II parted from the Court's "due process" focus, though he agreed with the outcome, as he regularly did in cases involving whether to apply federal rights to state courts.
  The impact of Washington was narrowed by a later case, Taylor v. Illinois, in which the Court said that "countervailing public interests", like the need to move through cases quickly, could be balanced against a defendant's right to present witnesses.
context_section_description: Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the opinion of the Court, which spoke for eight justices in reversing the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Warren began by stating that the Court had never been "previously called upon to decide whether the right of the accused to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor ... is so fundamental [that] it is incorporated in the Due Process Clause". Because of the incorporation to states of other procedural guarantees, the "right to offer the testimony of witnesses" could be given no less weight. Warren wrote that it was critical to the ability to "present a defense ... [a] defendant's version of the facts". This broad right was necessary to detail thoroughly, he wrote, because ignoring how the right would actually be applied would risk making the right to compel witnesses futile.
  After determining that the Sixth Amendment's "right to compulsory process is applicable in this state proceeding" (i.e. that the Compulsory Process Clause applied to the states), the question became whether the specific instance of Washington's trial was an unconstitutional deprivation of that right. Despite the common law restriction against co-defendants testifying for each other, Warren noted that federal courts had refused to be "bound by 'the dead hand of the common-law'" since 1918. Along with the precedent of prior federal court decisions, the fact that there were a great deal of exceptions to this rule demonstrated the "absurdity of the rule" itself. Specifically, under the Texas statute—which allowed a defendant acquitted at a separate trial to testify for the other defendant at the other's trial—the "law leaves [the co-defendant] free to testify when he has a great incentive to perjury, [but] bars his testimony in situations where he has a lesser motive to lie".
  Warren concluded that the nature of the Texas law at issue denied Washington the right for a fair trial using witnesses who could testify to "relevant and material" facts in the case. Here, while not entirely relying on the finding, the Court saw the law as "arbitrary" because its discrimination between the prosecution and defense served "no rational relationship" to any goal of preventing perjury. Further, the idea that a "competent" witness was barred from testifying, in and of itself, was held to be an unconstitutional predetermination on the part of the state legislature. The Court's decision upheld the importance of juries in evaluating the truth and credibility of witnesses' statements.
  Despite adopting a broad principle, the Court did not list any specific rules for how trial judges were to balance evidentiary standards and the right of the defendant to secure witnesses in his or her favor.
caption: Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the majority opinion in Washington.
exif: {"Image Orientation": "Horizontal (normal)", "Image XResolution": "200", "Image YResolution": "200", "Image ResolutionUnit": "Pixels/Inch", "Image Software": "GIMP 2.8.16", "Image DateTime": "2018:05:18 01:55:28", "Image ExifOffset": "146", "Thumbnail Compression": "JPEG (old-style)", "Thumbnail XResolution": "72", "Thumbnail YResolution": "72", "Thumbnail ResolutionUnit": "Pixels/Inch", "EXIF ExifVersion": "0210", "EXIF FlashPixVersion": "0100", "EXIF ColorSpace": "sRGB", "EXIF ExifImageWidth": "620", "EXIF ExifImageLength": "773"}