Opinion ID: 2053596
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Warning to Wilder

Text: Jones' final argument is that the trial judge deprived him of a fair trial and fundamental due process by threatening the sole defense witness and driving him from the witness stand. Jones cites Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95, 93 S.Ct. 351, 34 L.Ed.2d 330 (1972), as support, but this case is distinguishable from Webb. In Webb, the trial judge told the witness, a prisoner, that if he perjured himself that the judge would personally see that your case goes to the grand jury, that if the witness would get on the witness stand and he, it is probably going to mean several years and at least more time that you are going to have to serve, and that it would be held against the witness when he is up for parole. Id. at 96, 93 S.Ct. at 352-53. The Supreme Court held that these remarks exerted such duress on the witness' mind as to preclude him from making a free and voluntary choice whether or not to testify. Id. at 98, 93 S.Ct. at 353-54. The events here were rather different, to say the least. Jones' witness, Wilder, stated a desire to speak with his own attorney before testifying. The fact that he later expressed an interest in going forward with testifying, though of some probative value, is not dispositive of a knowing and intelligent waiver of rights. If anything, it suggested the witness' knowledge of his rights was not very solid. The proper judicial response under the circumstances was the one taken: to wait until the witness spoke with counsel. The warnings were hardly judicial threats. Moreover, Wilder's sudden entry into the proceedings on the day of trial justifiably aroused the court's concern. Defense counsel was so unsure of Wilder's proposed testimony that he moved for a continuance to depose the witness before calling him to testify. Wilder's proposed testimony was likely to subject him to criminal sanctions whether it was true or false. Ultimately, the judge's attention to Wilder was not gratuitous, but cautious and prudent. We therefore conclude that the court did not violate Jones' due process rights in advising Myron Wilder of his constitutional rights in the manner he chose.