Opinion ID: 2632413
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: I. The United States Supreme Court recognizes a fundamental due process right to confrontation

Text: ¶ 48 The United States Supreme Court has held due process guarantees every person threatened with involuntary incarceration the right to confront witnesses against them, whether the proceeding is civil or criminal. Specht v. Patterson, 386 U.S. 605, 607-08, 87 S.Ct. 1209, 18 L.Ed.2d 326 (1967). Francis Specht argued Colorado's Sex Offenders Act was unconstitutional because he could be sentenced for an indeterminate term of from one day to life . . . without a hearing at which [he could] confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. Id. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed: These commitment proceedings whether denominated civil or criminal are subject both to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . and to the Due Process Clause. We hold that the requirements of due process were not satisfied here. Id. at 608, 87 S.Ct. 1209 (emphasis added). The majority tries to distinguish Specht, suggesting the Colorado statute was criminal in purpose. Majority at 94 n. 12 (emphasis omitted). [3] However, the Court's holding unquestionably says any involuntary commitment proceeding, civil or criminal, is subject to due process. The Court enunciated those minimal due process protections that must always be provided: Due process, in other words, requires that he be present with counsel, have an opportunity to be heard, be confronted with witnesses against him, have the right to cross-examine, and to offer evidence of his own. Specht, 386 U.S. at 610, 87 S.Ct. 1209 (emphasis added). [4]