Legal Document

390 U.S. 719 88 Supreme Court Reporter 1318 20 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 255 Jack Allen BARBER, Petitioner,v.Ray or Haw. Hawai‘i KFH45 A2 PAGE, Warden. Number 703. Argued March 28, 1968. Decided April 23, Ira G. Rothgerber, Jr., Denver, Colo., for petitioner. Charles L. Owens, Oklahoma City, Okl., respondent. Mr. Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The question presented is whether petitioner was deprived his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to be confronted with witnesses against him at trial in armed robbery, which principal evidence consisted reading a transcript preliminary hearing testimony witness who time incarcerated federal prison Texas. 2 Petitioner one Woods were jointly charged represented by same retained counsel, Parks. During course hearing, agreed waive privilege self-incrimination. Parks then withdrew as Woods' attorney but continued represent Thereupon proceeded give that incriminated did not cross-examine Woods, although an another codefendant did. 3 By brought some seven months later, penitentiary Texarkana, Texas, about 225 miles from court Oklahoma. State proposed introduce on ground unavailable testify because he outside jurisdiction. objected it would deprive him. His objection overruled admitted read jury, found guilty. On appeal Criminal Appeals affirmed conviction. Barber versus State, 388 Pacific Reporter, 2nd 320 (Okl.Cr.App. 1963). 4 sought habeas corpus, claiming use state constitutional confrontation violation Amendments. contention rejected District Tenth Circuit, judge dissenting, affirmed. 381 Federal 479 (1966). We granted certiorari, 389 819, 115, 19 69 (1967), consider petitioner's denial claim, we reverse. 5 Many years ago this stated '(t)he primary object (Confrontation Clause Amendment) * prevent depositions ex parte affidavits being used prisoner lieu personal examination cross-examination accused has opportunity, only testing recollection sifting conscience witness, compelling stand face jury order they may look him, demeanor upon manner gives worthy belief.' Mattox States, 156 237, 242—243, 15 337, 339, 39 L.Ed. 409 (1895). More recently, holding applicable through Amendment, said, 'There are few subjects, perhaps, other courts have been more nearly unanimous than their expressions belief essential fundamental requirement kind fair country's goal.' Pointer 380 400, 405, 85 1065, 1068, 13 923 (1965). See also Douglas Alabama, 415, 1074, 934 6 It true there traditionally exception where given previous judicial proceedings defendant subject defendant. E.g., supra (witnesses testified original died prior second trial). This explained arising necessity justified initially afforded provides substantial compliance purposes behind requirement. Wigmore, Evidence §§ 1395—1396, 1402 (3d ed. 1940); C. McCormick, 231, 234 (1954). 7 Here argues introduction within grounds jurisdiction therefore 'unavailable' trial, utilized For purpose decision shall assume made valid waiver such assumption seems open considerable under circumstances.1 8 start fact absolutely no effort obtain presence ascertain must acknowledged various courts2 commentators3 heretofore assumed mere absence sufficient dispensing theory 'it impossible compel attendance, process force without jurisdiction, party desiring helpless.' § 1404 1940). 9 Whatever accuracy time, clear present increased cooperation between themselves Government largely any continuing validity criminal law.4 example, case prospective currently custody, 28 Code KF62 2241(c)(5) power issue writs corpus ad testificandum request prosecutorial authorities. Gilmore 129 199, 202 (C.A.10th Cir. 1942); McGaha, 205 F.Supp. 949 (D.C.E.D.Tenn. 1962). In addition, policy Bureau Prisons permit prisoners pursuant issued out courts.5 Cf. Lawrence Willingham, 373 731 1967) (habeas prosequendum). 10 authorities avail either above alternative means seeking secure trial. majority appears reasoned had exercise discretion part authorities, obligation make request. Yet Judge Aldrich, sitting designation, pointed dissent below, 'the possibility refusal equivalent asking receiving rebuff.' F.2d, 481. short, foregoing unless good-faith here, and, so far record reveals, sole reason why person attempt seek presence. dispensed lightly. 11 waived confront cross-examining hearing. That untenable. Not unaware that, even assuming incarceration, produce To suggest failure circumstances constitutes subsequent hardly comports Court's definition 'an intentional relinquishment abandonment known privilege.' Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 464, 58 1019, 1023, 82 1461 (1938); Brookhart Janis, 384 1, 4, 86 1245, 1246, 16 314 12 Moreover, reach result facts counsel actually cross-examined Motes 178 993, 44 1150 (1900). basically right. includes both opportunity occasion weigh witness. A ordinarily much less searching exploration into merits simply its function limited determining probable cause exists hold While justification satisfies demand clause shown unavailable, not, out, case.6 judgment Circuit reversed remanded further consistent opinion. 14 ordered. Reversed remanded. HARLAN, concurring. 17 & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions agree State's denied due process, concur premises my 408, 1070, 923. Since presumably discussed connection crime before seem highly effective necessitated covering material confidential communications correct asserting waived, law, assert attorney-client those matters testifying, very least serious ethical questions circumstances. And fact, cases cited support barred involved situations client existence nature himself attorney's way rebuttal. Brown Okl.Cr. 382, 132 KF135 P2 359 (1913); Boring Harber, 130 Okl. 251, 267 252 (1927). As reveals hence applicability questionable. collected 1404, n. 1964 Supp.). prison, Uniform Act Secure Attendance Witnesses Without Proceedings prosecuting can directing appear first testify. apparance pay specified sum travel allowance compensation time. 1967 45 Columbia, Canal Zone, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands. Laws Ann. 50 (1967 quite probably many utilize common-law writ sister showing adequate safeguards keep custody maintained. Department Justice, Marshals Manual 720.04—720.06. Brief Amicus Curiae, Smith Hooey, 495, Misc., October Term, prosequendum normally honored Prisons). Holman Washington, 364 618 (C.A.5th 1966); Islands Aquino, 378 540 (C.A.3d 1967).

Classification Label: 0