Legal Document

388 U.S. 14 87 Supreme Court Reporter 1920 18 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 1019 Jackie WASHINGTON, Petitioner,v.STATE OF TEXAS. Number 649. Argued March 15 and 16, 1967. Decided June 12, Charles W. Tessmer, Dallas, Tex., for petitioner. Howard M. Fender, Austin, respondent. Mr. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 We granted certiorari in this case to determine whther right a defendant criminal under Sixth Amendment1 have compulsory process obtaining witnesses his favor is applicable through Fourteenth Amendment,2 whether that wasvi olated by state procedural statute providing persons charged as principals, accomplices, or accessories same crime cannot be introduced each other. 2 Petitioner, Washington, was convicted Dallas County, Texas, murder with malice sentenced jury 50 years prison. The prosecution's evidence showed petitioner, an 18-year-old youth, had dated girl named Jean Carter until her mother forbidden see him. thereafter began dating another boy, deceased. Evidently motivated jealousy, petitioner several other boys driving around City on night August 29, 1964, looking gun. search eventually led one Fuller, who joined group shotgun. After some shells from source, proceeded Carter's home, where Jean, family deceased were having supper. Some threw bricks at house then ran back car, leaving Fuller alone front At sound rushed out porch investigate. shotgun fired either fatally wounded. Shortly afterward came running car waited, carrying 3 Petitioner testified own behalf. He claimed intoxicated, taken gun him, he unsuccessfully tried persuade leave before shooting. insisted going shoot someone, run automobile. saw girl's come door running, subsequently heard shot. time, thought shot woman. In support version facts, offered testimony Fuller. record indicates would pulled him leave, fatal 4 It undisputed Fuller's been relevant material, it vital defense. only person than knew exactly last minute attempted prevent however, previously prison,3 confined County jail. Two Texas statutes provided time trial coparticipants could not testify another,4 although there no bar their testifying State.5 On basis these judge sustained State's objection refused allow testify. Petitioner's conviction followed, upheld appeal Criminal Appeals. 400 South Western Reporter, 2nd 756. certiorari. 385 812, 123, 17 54. reverse. I. 5 called upon decide accused favor, guaranteed federal trials Amendment, so fundamental essential fair incorporated Due Process Clause Amendment.6 Amendment application trials.7 That view longer prevails, recent we increasingly looked specific guarantees conducted due law. held requires assistance counsel defense,8 confronted against him,9 speedy10 public11 trial. 6 stands lesser footing rights States. This occasion re Oliver, 333 257, 68 499, 92 L.Ed. 682 (1948), describe what regarded most basic ingredients observed that: 7 'A person's reasonable notice charge opportunity defense—a day court—are our system jurisprudence; include, minimum, examine offer testimony, represented couse l.' U.S., 273, 507 (footnote omitted). 8 witnesses, compel attendance, if necessary, plain terms present defense, defendant's facts well may truth lies. Just has confront purpose challenging establish element II. 9 Since proceeding, question remains violated circumstances case. denied defense because State but made inadmissible courtroom not. are thus any put stand, attendance court. resolution discussion common-law context which adopted. 10 Joseph Story, famous Commentaries Constitution States, included Bill Rights reaction notorious rule cases treason felony allowed introduce all.12 Although absolute prohibition abolished England 1787,13 Framers felt necessary specifically provide defendants should means evidence, prosecution's, might evaluated jury. 11 Despite abolition generally disqualifying common law retained number restrictions physically mentally capable testifying. To extent they applicable, effect suppressing general proscription had. Defendants codefendants among large class disqualified ground interest.14 A party civil behalf fear tempted lie. originally disqualification codefendant appears based status action, jurisdictions co-indictees separate trials,15 accomplices incompetent least even trials, spite making competent behalf.16 two other, 'each try swear charge.'17 rule, disqualifications interest, rested unstated premises subordinate court's interest preventing perjury, erroneous decisions best avoided hearing prejured, available crucial issue.18 12 courts followed despite Amendment. versus Reid, How. 361, 13 1023 (1852), jointly indicted high seas call witness. expressly recognized designed abolish harsh rules law, particularly including refusal serious defense,19 those force various passage Judiciary Act 1789, together. holding Reid satisfactory later generations, 1918 overruled it, refusing bound 'the dead hand 1789,' taking note more likely arrived all understanding seem knowledge involved case, credit weight such determined court * *.' Rosen 245 467, 471, 38 148, 150, 62 406. nonconstitutional grounds, believe its reasoning required light history, recognition part make admissible court, hardly argued violate clause matter difficult how less arbitrary whole categories priori presume them unworthy belief. alleged accomplice defended rationally sets apart commit perjury. absurdity amply demonstrated exceptions it. For example, prosecution defendant.20 Common sense suggest often greater lying rather especially still awaiting sentencing. think criminals will lie save fellows obtain favors themselves indeed clothe nobility expect find puli c large. Moreover, statutes, acquitted Presumably, free comrade, secure incriminate himself freely liked since again prosecuted offense. leaves when great incentive bars situations motive hold arbitrarily stand witness events personally observed, whose material defense.21 did intend futile act giving use. judgment must reversed. ordered. 16 Reversed. HARLAN, concurring result. reasons & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions stated my Gideon Wainweight, 372 335, 349, 83 792, 799, result Pointer 380 400, 408, 85 1065, 1070, 923 dissenting Poe Ullman, 367 497 539—545, 81 1752, 1774—1778, 989, accept 'incorporates,' terms, provisions Rights. reducible 'a series isolated points,' rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes freedom substantial impositions purposeless restraints supra, 543, 1777, Palko Connecticut, 302 319, 58 149, 82 288; Klopfer North Carolina, 386 213, 226, 988, 995, (opinion result). 19 concur constitutionally forbid defendant, introducing important connection offense, not, barred prosecution. forward justification type discrimination between ability witness, can none. 20 then, really problem 'compulsory process' all, Court's incorporationist approach leads strain constitutional provision reach peculiar statutes. Neither situation determined, valid evidentiary experience particular persons, incompetent1 perjury,2 pursuit served across-the-board class. Compare Spencer 554, 648, 606. recgn ized use defendant. This, think, forbids. 'In prosecutions, shall enjoy speedy public trial, impartial district wherein committed, ascertained informed nature cause accusation; him; Assistance Counsel defence.' '(N)or deprive life, liberty, property, without See State, 397 434 (Tex.Crim.App.1966). 'Persons accessories, different indictments, another, claim severane, others.' Vernon's Ann.Tex.Pen.Code, Article 82. severance; and, acquitted, dismissed, Tex.Code Crim.Proc., 711 (1925). These statutory apparently repealed implication 36.09 Ann.Texas Code Procedure 1965, became effective after petitioner's provides 'Two separately complained offense growing transaction be, discretion defendants; event cited jurisdictions, found none, flatly disqualify regardless separately. distinguished may, insufficient, entitled immediate acquittal others. joint incriminating themselves. See, e.g., Ala.Code, Tit. 15, § 309 (1958); Alaska Crim.Proc. 12.20.060 (1962); Kan.Gen.Stat.Ann. 62—1440 (1964). Rangel 22 Tex.App. 642, Southwestern KF135 S79 788 (1887). '(A) 'fundamental trial' obligatory Amendment.' Wainwright, 342, 795, 799 (1963). West Louisiana, 194 258, 264, 24 650, 652, 48 965 (1904). (1965). (1967). (1948). §§ 1786—1788 (1st ed. 1833). By 1701 both produce oath. Wigmore, Evidence 575, 685—686 (3d 1940). Wigmore 575—576 hav d iscussed elsewhere gradual demise prohibiting Ferguson Georgia, 365 570, 756, 783 (1961). 580, 709—710 1940); Henderson 70 Ala. 23, 24—25 (Dec.Term 1881); Allen Ohio St. 287, 303 1859). Foster 45 Ark. 328 (1885 May Term); Drake, Or. 396, Pacific P2 1204 (1884). Both overturned statute. Ark.Stat.Ann. 43—2017 (1947); Ore.Rev.Stat. 139.315 Benson 146 325, 60, 63, 36 991 (1892). 'Indeed, theory admit presumably honest, appreciating sanctity oath, unaffected result, temptations interest. afraid trust intelligence jurors.' 336, How., 363—364, 1023. n. 5, supra. 21 Nothing construed disapproving testimonial privileges, privilege self-incrimination lawyer-client husband-wife entirely considerations underlying Nor do deal nonarbitrary who, mental infirmity infancy, incapable observing about them. E.g., Cal.Civ.Proc.Code 1880, subd. 1; Cal.Pen.Code 1321. Vermont Stat.Ann., 1608. 488

Classification Label: 0