Document: 498 U.S. 184 111 S.Ct. 599 112 L.Ed.2d 608 Richard DEMAREST, Petitioner,v.James MANSPEAKER et al. No. 89-5916. Argued Nov. 6, 1990. Decided Jan. 8, 1991. Syllabus Petitioner Demarest, an inmate in a state correctional facility, testified as witness federal criminal trial pursuant to writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum issued by the District Court. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1825(a), he requested that respondent Clerk Court certify was entitled fees "witness . attendance" under 1821. After request denied, filed petition for mandamus requesting court order fees, which dismissed on ground 1821 does not authorize payment prisoners. The Appeals affirmed, holding while 1821's language unqualified, other evidence revealed Congress did intend permit prisoners receive fees. Held: Section requires convicted prisoner who testifies at testificandum. statute's terms make virtually inescapable conclusion attendance any United States" 1821(a)(1) includes unless they are otherwise excepted statute. That thinking about incarcerated persons when it drafted statute is shown fact subsection (d)(1) excluded witnesses from eligibility subsistence payments and (e) expressly another class witnesses—detained aliens—from Respondents' argument 1825(a)—which be paid defense "appearing subpoenas upon approval court"—modifies "in exclude because "produced" rejected. reading inconsistent respondents' concession routinely appearing verbal agreement among parties Hurtado v. States, 410 578, 93 1157, 35 508, upheld right material who, rather than being subpoenaed, were detained former Federal Rule Criminal Procedure 46(b). If these exceptions concept attendance," then means no more "summoned testificandum." Such view supported statutory would lead anomaly summoned testify Government fees—since 1825(a) require them appear personally subpoena—while defendant not. reaching its decision, mistakenly relied longstanding administrative construction Courts Appeals' decisions denying prisoners, followed congressional revision Administrative interpretation contrary plain deference, and, where law plain, subsequent reenactment constitute adoption previous construction. This case present rare exceptional circumstance application written will produce result demonstrably odds drafters' intentions. While there may good reasons deny seldom gainfully employed therefore do suffer loss income many do, same can said children retired persons, clearly declines consider defects Demarest's independent basis Clerk's decision withhold certification, since raised courts below. Pp. 601-604. 884 F.2d 1343 (C.A.10 1989), reversed. REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered opinion unanimous James E. Scarboro, Denver, Colo., petitioner. Michael R. Lazerwitz, Washington, D.C., respondents. Chief Justice REHNQUIST 1 question presented whether Tenth Circuit concluded We disagree conclude does. 2 March 1988, petitioner Colorado trial. He transported States marshal Denver County Jail had been Colorado. Demarest 8th day 11-day remained custody marshals throughout period. completing his testimony, sought eight days available two spent transit Jail. 3 Court, Manspeaker, forward certification fee. Respondent forwarded petitioner's attorney, turn denied 1821(a) entitle subsequently Manspeaker petition, agreeing 4 affirmed divided vote. (1989). held "unqualified," granted certiorari, 495 903, 110 1921, 109 285 (1990), determine brought virtue 5 deciding construction, we begin course provides follows: 6 "(a)(1) Except provided law, shall allowances this section. 7 8 "(b) A fee $30 per each day's attendance. also time necessarily occupied going returning place beginning end such or during 9 10 "(d)(1) allowance (other incarcerated) overnight stay required so far removed residence prohibit return thereto day. 11 12 "(e) An alien has paroled into prosecution, section 212(d)(5) Immigration Nationality Act (8 1182(d)(5)), either admitted belonging aliens deportable determined 242(b) 1252(b)) deportable, ineligible section." 13 Subsection (a)(1) (b) "a $30." witnesses, but excepts those incarcerated. excludes think analysis shows individuals statute, believe removes all doubt question, inescapable, therefore, general found 14 Respondents rely cognate provisions 1825 sustain provides: 15 "(a) party, district pay certificate attorney assistant except experts, court, district— 16 17 "(2) clerk affidavit witnesses' given counsel appointed 3006A title 18, represented counsel." 18 first argue satisfy requirements failed allege appeared subpoena obtained regarding defendant's counsel. contend thus need reach have made proper petition. alleged after our grant certiorari. raise below, decline here time. Lytle Household Mfg., Inc., 494 545, 551-552, n. 3, 1331, 1336, 108 504 (1990). 19 On merits, respondents 1825, considered pari materia 1821, modifies manner justifies exclusion conceding applies attendance, urge 1825(a)'s reference imports highly particularized meaning words attendance." observe court." read exclusive. Therefore, reason technically testificandum, subpoena, types within 20 Although sections literally plausible, own concessions 508 (1973). admit subpoena—by nothing arrangement parties—are And Hurtado, 46(b) These their inability give security appearance. U.S., 579, 1, S.Ct., 1165, 1. 21 nonetheless maintain sort "process" conceive necessary element 1821(a)(1). But point urged comes mean Not only support view, 22 Appeals, outlined above "[o]n face appealing argument," F.2d, 1345, effect,1 1978. 23 find deference. See Public Employees Retirement System Ohio Betts, 492 158, 2854, 106 134 There indication aware appellate decisions, revised Where Leary 395 24-25, 89 1532, 1541-1542, 57 (1969). 24 When unambiguous, judicial inquiry complete circumstances. Burlington Northern Co. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 481 454, 461, 107 1855, 1859, 95 404 (1987); Rubin 449 424, 430, 101 698, 701, 66 633 (1981); TVA Hill, 437 153, 187, 98 2279, 2298, 117 (1978). one cases "demonstrably intentions drafters." Griffin Oceanic Contractors, 458 564, 571, 102 3245, 3250, 73 973 (1982). compensate testifying trials; prison, do. true customarily them. cannot say bizarre "could intended" it. Id., 575, 3252. judgment 25 Reversed. Meadows Marshal, Georgia, 434 1007 (CA5 1970) cert. 401 1014, 91 1265, 551 (1971); re Grand Jury Matter (Witness RW), 697 103 (CA3 1982).

Category: 0