Opinion ID: 397401
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Constitutional Waiver

Text: 39 The sixth amendment to the Constitution provides in part that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him .... All parties to this appeal agree that this right may be waived in a proper case. Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 1, 86 S.Ct. 1245, 16 L.Ed.2d 314 (1966). Whether a waiver existed in this case requires analyzing two separate questions: whether a defendant's murder of a witness for the purpose of preventing his testifying at trial constitutes a valid waiver, and what standard of proof the government must bear in proving that waiver. 40 A waiver of a constitutional right is ordinarily valid only if there is an intentional relinquishment of a known right or privilege. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938). A variety of actions by the accused constitute an express waiver of the right to confrontation. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) (guilty plea); United States v. Stephens, 609 F.2d 230 (5th Cir. 1980) (stipulations to evidence). The accused, however, may also waive his confrontation rights indirectly, such as by absenting himself from trial, Taylor v. United States, 414 U.S. 17, 94 S.Ct. 194, 38 L.Ed.2d 174 (1973), or engaging in contumacious conduct which requires his removal from the courtroom. Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970). 41 We conclude that a defendant who causes a witness to be unavailable for trial for the purpose of preventing that witness from testifying also waives his right to confrontation under the Zerbst standard. A defendant who undertakes this conduct realizes that the witness is no longer available and cannot be cross-examined. Hence in such a situation the defendant has intelligently and knowingly waived his confrontation rights. 42 The policy interests underlying the confrontation clause, moreover, mandate this result. We recognize that the right of confrontation is so fundamental to our concept of a fair trial that it is a privilege specifically guaranteed by the Constitution. Nevertheless, both Taylor and Allen indicate that the right is not absolute, and must give way at times to stronger state interests. Similarly, when confrontation becomes impossible due to the actions of the very person who would assert the right, logic dictates that the right has been waived. The law simply cannot countenance a defendant deriving benefits from murdering the chief witness against him. To permit such subversion of a criminal prosecution would be contrary to public policy, common sense, and the underlying purpose of the confrontation clause, United States v. Carlson, 547 F.2d 1346, 1359 (8th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 914, 97 S.Ct. 2174, 53 L.Ed.2d 224 (1977), and make a mockery of the system of justice that the right was designed to protect. 43 The question of the proper burden of proof to apply to the waiver question presents a more difficult issue. Appellants claim that the reasonable doubt standard should apply, relying in part on the Supreme Court decision In Re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). 13 As the Court later noted in Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 92 S.Ct. 619, 30 L.Ed.2d 618 (1972), however, Winship was not concerned with the standards for determining the admissibility of evidence; rather, Winship merely affirmed the necessity for the prosecution, in order to secure a conviction, to prove every essential element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Here the trial court's decision to admit Underhill's statements was purely an evidentiary ruling, not a decision on Thevis' substantive guilt. Hence we reject appellants' reasonable doubt standard on the basis of the Supreme Court's analysis in Lego. 44 Because of the intimate association between the right to confrontation and the accuracy of the fact-finding process, however, we also reject the government's suggestion that the preponderance standard accepted by the Supreme Court in Lego (to judge the voluntariness of a confession) and United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 94 S.Ct. 988, 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974) (to judge whether a warrantless search was consensual) is also adequate to protect confrontation rights. 45 The Supreme Court repeatedly has noted the importance of confrontation rights in testing the reliability of evidence. Indeed, the Court in its most recent confrontation clause case declared that the role of confrontation in testing accuracy is so important that the absence of confrontation at trial calls into question the ultimate integrity of the fact-finding process. Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 64, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2538, 65 L.Ed.2d 579 (1980) (quoting Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 295, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 1046, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973) and Berger v. California, 393 U.S. 314, 315, 89 S.Ct. 540, 541, 21 L.Ed.2d 508 (1969)). The Court, moreover, has stated that a primary interest secured by (the confrontation clause) is the right to cross-examination, Ohio v. Roberts, supra at 63, 100 S.Ct. at 2537 (quoting Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 418, 85 S.Ct. 1074, 1076, 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965)), which has been described as the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth. J. Wigmore, Evidence § 1367 (3d ed. 1940). As we have previously noted: 46 (T)he right of cross-examination is more than a desirable rule of trial procedure. It is implicit in the constitutional right of confrontation, and helps assure the accuracy of the truth-determining process. It is, indeed, an essential and fundamental requirement for the kind of fair trial which is this country's constitutional goal. 47 Smith v. Estelle, 569 F.2d 944, 946 (5th Cir. 1978) (quoting Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973) (citations omitted)). 48 Where reliability of evidence is a primary concern, the Supreme Court has conditioned admissibility on the clear and convincing standard. The prosecution, for example, must prove by clear and convincing evidence that an in-court identification that follows a tainted identification has a reliable independent basis before the identification can be admitted into evidence. United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 240, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 1939, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967); Cannon v. Alabama, 558 F.2d 1211, 1218 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1087, 98 S.Ct. 1281, 55 L.Ed.2d 792 (1978). In contrast, judicial determinations of the admissibility of evidence under the exclusionary rule normally do not relate to the reliability of the evidence, but instead are aimed at deterring police misconduct. Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 486-87, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 3048-49, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976); United States v. Brookins, 614 F.2d 1037, 1046-47 (5th Cir. 1980). See Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 484-85 & nn. 12 & 13, 92 S.Ct. 619, 624-25 & nn. 12 & 13, 30 L.Ed.2d 618 (1976) (purpose of voluntariness hearing is not to decide reliability of confession). 14 Thus because confrontation rights are so integral to the accuracy of the fact-finding process and the search for truth, in contrast to the exclusionary rule, we conclude that the trial court was correct in requiring clear and convincing evidence of a waiver of this right.