Court Opinion

ID: 9479357
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:15:42.972891+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:58.720702
License: Public Domain

SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
Although I agree with the majority in all other respects, I respectfully dissent from its view that the prosecution acted in good faith in attempting to secure the presence of witness Sam Love, and that Love was “unavailable.” I am convinced that Felix Martinez was impermissibly deprived of his Sixth Amendment confrontation right, and I would grant his habeas petition contingent upon the State of New Mexico’s decision to conduct a new trial.
My concern about the majority’s treatment of the unavailability issue is twofold. First, its presentation of the facts does not include record evidence demonstrating Love’s unreliability and supporting Martinez’ argument that the prosecution should not have relied on Love’s prior cooperation or his assurances of continued cooperation. The prosecution was aware of all this evidence. Most critically, no reference is made in the opinion to Love’s testimony at Martinez’ second trial that he skipped bond in 1975 while awaiting trial for forgery in Albuquerque, New Mexico.1 Rec., vol. V, State Court Transcripts, Transcript of Testimony of Sam Love, Jr. (hereinafter “Love Testimony”), at 38-39. This testimony was elicited by Bert Atkins, the prosecutor with primary responsibility for both New Mexico v. Martinez and New Mexico v. Lujan throughout the investigation and prosecution of the two cases. Rec., vol. VIII, Transcript of Proceedings (hereinafter “Proceedings”), vol. 5, at 1289. In addition, although the opinion mentions that Love was awaiting trial in Oklahoma, majority op. at 924-25, it does not indicate that Love’s probation officer, Elaine Har-grove, notified the prosecution of Love’s arrest for grand larceny in Oklahoma on May 27, 1982, by letter dated June 9, 1982. Rec., vol. VIII, Proceedings, vol. 5, at 1298. It is unclear whether the letter stated that Love could receive a twenty year sentence if convicted, but the prosecution knew that Love faced possible prosecution for probation violation in New Mexico as a result, id. at 1301-02, and the nature of the charge *932clearly put the prosecution on notice that he faced the possibility of receiving a substantial jail term as well.
Nor does the majority accord any significance to the fact that the prosecution worked closely with Love’s probation officer to make arrangements for his various trips to New Mexico, id. at 1299, although it acknowledges that the probation officer served Love with the invalid State of New Mexico subpoena for the September 8, 1982, Martinez trial, id. at 1316. Despite this close working relationship, the prosecution apparently never asked, and allegedly did not discover, when Love was scheduled for trial in Oklahoma until September 8, 1982, the first day of the Martinez trial. Id. at 1300. These circumstances suggest that the state had a rather cavalier attitude about securing Love’s presence at the third trial, especially considering the significance of Love’s testimony and the fact that a capital offense was involved. Similarly, the majority attaches no significance to the prosecution’s knowledge that Oklahoma authorities had released Love on bond pending his criminal trial there.
I also am concerned about the majority’s resolution of the unavailability issue. I agree that the related questions of whether a party acted in good faith to secure a witness’ attendance at trial and whether the witness is unavailable are mixed questions of fact and law reviewable de novo by this court. I disagree, however, with the evaluation of these questions under what I understand to be a “totality of the circumstances” standard, and also with the outcome of this evaluation.
I would adopt a per se rule requiring use of the Uniform Act, when available and applicable, as a condition precedent to findings that a party made a good-faith attempt to secure a witness, and that the witness is unavailable. In my view, the reasoning of Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 724-25, 88 S.Ct. 1318, 1321-22, 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968), and Mancusi v. Stubbs, 408 U.S. 204, 210-14, 92 S.Ct. 2308, 2311-14, 33 L.Ed.2d 293 (1972), support this position, although neither opinion expressly so holds.2 Barber identified the Uniform Act as one of several contemporary procedures responsible for "largely depriving] of ... any continuing validity” the traditional rule that a witness’ absence from a jurisdiction supports a finding of “unavailability.” Barber, 390 U.S. at 723 & n. 4, 88 S.Ct. at 1321 & n. 4. More importantly, in announcing the good-faith standard, the Court outlined the standard’s parameters by juxtaposing it against a position it clearly indicated fell outside those parameters: the appellate court’s reasoning that it is unnecessary to invoke a particular procedure if requests thereunder might be refused. Id. at 724, 88 S.Ct. at 1321. In so doing, the Court effectively held that the potential ineffectiveness of available procedural process is not a valid basis under the good-faith standard for not invoking that process. Mancusi reinforced the importance placed by the Court on the invocation of the Uniform Act and other available methods as a predicate to a finding of good faith. See 408 U.S. at 212, 92 S.Ct. at 2312.
Numerous state courts have adopted a per se rule relying on Barber and Mancusi, albeit without analysis. See e.g., State v. Gray, 616 S.W.2d 102, 105 (Mo.App.1981) (characterizing the per se approach as the “majority rule”); State v. Hills, 379 So.2d 740, 743-44 (La.1980); State v. Ray, 123 Ariz. 171, 173, 598 P.2d 990, 992 (1979) (en banc); Ormound v. Sheriff, Clark County, 95 Nev. 173, 591 P.2d 258, 259 (1979) (per curiam); State v. Kim, 55 Haw. 346, 519 P.2d 1241, 1244-45 (1974); In re Terry, 4 Cal.3d 911, 95 Cal.Rptr. 31, 484 P.2d 1375, 1389-90 (1971); cf. Brooks v. State, *93335 Md.App. 461, 371 A.2d 674, 678 (1977). State court support for this position is not unanimous, however. See, e.g., Utah v. Chapman, 655 P.2d 1119, 1122-23 (Utah 1982) (noting per se approach is majority rule, but declining to follow it); Wisconsin v. Zellmer, 100 Wis.2d 136, 301 N.W.2d 209, 214 (1981) (declining to read Barber as requiring use of the Uniform Act).
Two federal district court cases, Eastham v. Johnson, 338 F.Supp. 1278, 1281 (E.D.Mi.1972), and Poe v. Turner, 353 F.Supp. 672, 674 (D.Utah 1972), have read Barber, standing alone or in conjunction with Mancusi, to require that the Uniform Act be utilized. The Ninth Circuit is apparently the only circuit court that has considered whether Barber mandates the use of the Uniform Act as a condition precedent to a finding of good faith.3 In Daboul v. Craven, 429 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir.1970), the court read Barber as “indicating] that if the prosecution fails to make use of the Uniform Act ... it has not made the required ‘good faith effort_’ ” The prece-dential value of Daboul is limited, however, because the court found the petitioner’s state remedies unexhausted as to this issue, and so did not reach the merits. In Gorum v. Craven, 465 F.2d 443, 445 (9th Cir.1972), the court acknowledged DabouVs reading of Barber.
Whatever precedential vitality Daboul once possessed is called into question by the reasoning and holding of Dres v. Campoy, 784 F.2d 996, 999 (9th Cir.1986). The context of the court’s reference to Daboul suggests that it considered the case binding precedent, but inapplicable because the prosecution did not know the witness’ current location. However, the court also rejected the petitioner’s argument that the prosecution’s efforts were not in good faith because the prosecution knew the witness’ previous address for months before the scheduled date of the second trial, yet never resorted to the procedures established by the Uniform Act. It construed the prosecution’s actions as a legitimate response to a tactical dilemma: subpoena the witness under the Uniform Act and risk her fleeing (as she had before the preliminary hearing), or use another method and risk the court finding a lack of good faith.4 In distinguishing a California state court case, the court expressly stated that
“[t]he prosecution should not have to comply with the procedures of the Uniform Act when it appears that an out-of-state witness is cooperative or more likely to testify on the basis of an informal agreement than under the compulsion of a subpoena.”
Id. at 1001.
I am not persuaded by the majority’s reasoning in Dres. As the dissent there points out, the majority’s assumption that the witness was more likely to flee when faced with a court order to appear than when faced with her mother’s promise to produce her seems far-fetched at best. Id. at 1002 (Hug, J. dissenting). The specious nature of this assumption is readily apparent because of the lack of evidence that the issuance of the subpoena caused the witness to flee before the preliminary hearing. On the face of it, it seems far more likely that the prospect of having to attend the impending hearing, not the subpoena itself, caused her to flee. Even assuming that the issuance of a subpoena pursuant to the Uniform Act would have increased the likelihood of the witness fleeing, this possibility must be counterbalanced by the fact that California could legally compel her presence only by means of a Uniform Act subpoena. The analytical framework used by the Dres majority is thus defective in terms of Barber’s holding that the potential ineffectiveness of available procedural *934process cannot be relied on to justify the failure to invoke that process under the good-faith standard. In sum, I believe that the circumstances of Dres present precisely the type of situation in which use of the Uniform Act should be required as a condition precedent to a finding of good faith.
In addition to the support for a per se rule found in the case law, policy considerations militate in favor of such a rule. As both Dres and this case demonstrate, the application of a “totality of the circumstances” approach lends itself to attempts to manipulate the determination of the unavailability question. There will likely always be some circumstances to justify a party asserting that they acted in good faith in not using the Uniform Act: the witness appeared to be cooperative, or had been so in the past, the party faced a tactical dilemma, etc. Parties are encouraged to be less than rigorous in securing witnesses’ attendance where such arguments might prove effective. The possibility of such tactical manipulation is especially offensive where, as here, the testimony of the out-of-state witness is central to the case. Adopting a per se rule that requires timely resort to the Uniform Act, when applicable and available, would discourage this kind of tactical maneuvering. In my view, drawing the line at use of the Uniform Act makes sense because the Act provides the only means of issuing legally effective process against an out-of-state witness.
We need not adopt a per se rule, however, in order to conclude that the prosecution failed to establish its good faith in attempting to secure the presence of witness Love. On de novo review, this court must make an independent determination of the issues before it, reviewing the record in light of its own independent judgment. Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Indus., 847 F.2d 1458, 1464 (10th Cir.1988). This record amply demonstrates that under a “totality of the circumstances” test, the state should have employed the Uniform Act. It is significant that Love was arrested in Oklahoma after the second trial. This fact clearly undercuts the prosecution’s contention that its efforts to bring Love to New Mexico for Martinez’ third trial occurred “under the same set of circumstances” as the prior occasions. Proceedings, vol. 5, at 1296. On these other occasions, Love was not facing criminal charges with the possibility of receiving a twenty year sentence and/or having his probation revoked.
The most critical fact is the prosecution’s knowledge that Love once before had skipped bond while awaiting trial. This knowledge standing alone casts doubt on the prosecution’s assertion that it had “[n]o reason whatsoever” to suspect that Love would not appear as scheduled. Id. Combined with its awareness of Love’s arrest in Oklahoma, this knowledge of Love’s previous behavior completely undermines the prosecution’s claim. The prosecution could not but have been aware that Love’s arrest was likely to dramatically alter his assessment of whether to continue cooperating. Returning to New Mexico could not any longer have seemed advantageous to Love, for even though he had received consideration for his earlier cooperation, rec., vol. VIII, Proceedings, vol. 5, at 1308, 1317-18, 1326; rec., vol. V, Love Testimony, at 72-75, he could not have expected such consideration to extend to protecting him from prosecution for such a serious probation violation, an event he knew could result in his reincarceration, id. at 76. And reincar-ceration meant Love would likely be the target of reprisals because he had testified against fellow inmates. These facts, combined with Love's reputation with prison officials as a “con man,” rec., vol. IX, Proceedings, vol. 7, at 1999, and his history of criminal activity involving dishonesty and misrepresentation, rec. vol. V, Love Testimony, at 35-43, made unreasonable the state’s reliance on Love’s previous cooperation and his assurances of continued cooperation.
These circumstances are closely analogous to those in State v. Case, 752 P.2d 356 (Utah App.1987). In Case, the state subpoenaed to a preliminary hearing a victim-witness hospitalized in-state. The victim-witness subsequently left the state but gave the prosecuting attorney’s office a *935forwarding address in Alabama. She acknowledged receipt of a State of Utah subpoena for the trial, and contacted the prosecuting attorney’s secretary approximately 8 other times, each time indicating her willingness to attend the trial. On the morning of the trial, she called to inform the prosecution she would not appear. As here, her testimony was central to the case. The court noted the Utah Supreme Court’s holding that use of the Uniform Act is permissive, but concluded that the victim-witness’ “lifestyle and nomadic habits ma[d]e it clear that she possessed the potential to disappear or refuse to appear at trial.” Id. at 358. In light of her potential unreliability, the court held that the prosecution’s reliance on the victim-witness’ telephoned assurances was unreasonable and that it should have invoked the procedures of the Uniform Act. Id. Similarly, Love’s prior history of skipping bond, his arrest subsequent to the second trial, and his extensive criminal record made his potential unreliability so unmistakably clear, in my opinion, that it was unreasonable for the prosecution not to resort to the Uniform Act, notwithstanding Love’s prior cooperation and assurances of continued cooperation.5
My conclusion that the trial court deprived petitioner of his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses by finding Sam Love unavailable and by admitting his preliminary hearing testimony does not end the inquiry, for not all errors of constitutional dimension are reversible errors. See Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U.S. 249, 108 S.Ct. 1792, 1797, 100 L.Ed.2d 284 (1988); Graham v. Wilson, 828 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir.1987); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 21-22, 87 S.Ct. 824, 826-27, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). The Supreme Court has held as a general rule that a constitutional error is harmless if the beneficiary of the error can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it did not contribute to the verdict. Id. at 24, 87 S.Ct. at 828. The harmless error rule thus “focus[es] on the underlying fairness of the trial rather than on the virtually inevitable presence of immaterial error.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 681, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1436, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986).
Notwithstanding the general rule, the Court has recognized that some constitutional errors are “so fundamental and pervasive that they require reversal without regard to the facts or circumstances of the particular case.” Id. Errors of this type include the introduction of a coerced confession, Payne v. Arkansas, 356 U.S. 560, 78 S.Ct. 844, 2 L.Ed.2d 975 (1958) (cited in Chapman, 386 U.S. at 23 n. 8, 87 S.Ct. at 828 n. 8); the complete denial of the right to counsel, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963); the absence of counsel from an arraignment when that results in the irretrievable loss of unasserted defenses, White v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 59, 83 S.Ct. 1050, 10 L.Ed.2d 193 (1963); the adjudication of a case before a biased judge, Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 47 S.Ct. 437, 71 L.Ed. 749 (1927); and the existence of a conflict of interest in representation throughout a proceeding, Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 98 S.Ct. 1173, 55 L.Ed.2d 426 (1978). “Harmless-error analysis thus presupposes a trial, at which the defendant, represented by counsel, may present evidence and argument before an impartial judge and jury.” Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 578, 106 S.Ct. 3101, 3106, 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1985).
In addition, the Court has indicated that in assessing the appropriateness of applying harmless-error analysis to a specific constitutional error, it is concerned with *936ensuring that the record contains the information necessary for reviewing courts to determine whether the error was harmless. Thus, the Court in Satterwhite observed that
“ ‘[i]n the normal case where a harmless-error rule is applied, the error occurs at trial and its scope is readily indentifiable. Accordingly, the reviewing court can undertake with some confidence its relatively narrow task of assessing the likelihood that the error materially affected the deliberations of the jury_ [A]ny inquiry into a claim of harmless error ... [for a violation such as a deprivation of the right to conflict-free representation which cannot be discerned from the record] would require, unlike most cases, unguided speculation.’ ”
Satterwhite, 108 S.Ct. at 1797 (quoting Holloway, 435 U.S. at 490-91, 98 S.Ct. at 1173). If a Sixth Amendment violation “abort[s] the basic trial process” or “de-nie[s] it altogether,” Rose, 478 U.S. at 578 n. 6, 106 S.Ct. at 3106 n. 6 (citations omitted), or is of a kind that contaminates the whole proceeding, leaving no easily identifiable trace in the record and necessitating “difficult inquiries concerning matters that might have been, but were not, placed in evidence,” id. at 579 n. 7, 106 S.Ct. at 3107 n. 7, then harmless-error analysis is inappropriate.
The trial court’s admission of Love’s preliminary hearing testimony based on it’s erroneous conclusion that he was unavailable does not fall within any of these categories. Moreover, although I have found no case directly on point, the Court’s reliance on the harmless-error standard in closely analagous cases makes clear that the standard applies here as well. Cf. Satterwhite, 108 S.Ct. 1792 (harmless error rule applies to admission of expert psychiatric testimony based on examination conducted in violation of Sixth Amendment right to counsel); Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969) (applying harmless error analysis to admission of non-testifying co-defendants’ confessions in violation of Bruton ); Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427, 92 S.Ct. 1056, 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972) (same); Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 684, 106 S.Ct. at 1438 (“the constitutionally improper denial of a defendant’s opportunity to impeach a witness for bias, like other Confrontation Clause errors, is subject to Chapman harmless-error analysis”) (emphasis added).
Harmless-error review is de novo. Graham, 828 F.2d at 659; see also Harrington, 395 U.S. at 254, 89 S.Ct. at 1728. Applying the harmless-error doctrine to this case convinces me that the admission of Love’s preliminary hearing testimony was not harmless. The State of New Mexico relied primarily on the testimony of six men who were inmates at Camp Sierra Blanca the night of Scott Wayne Thompson’s death, August 1, 1981. Five of these men, Martin Garza, Robert Keener, Billy Ray Hughes, Andrew Mitchell, and Thomas Hayward, lived in Bonito Lodge, the residence of defendant Martinez and the victim Thompson. The sixth individual, Sam Love, resided in Desert Lodge, the front of which faced the back of Bonito Lodge. The testimony of all the witnesses was impeached to greater and lesser degrees, primarily on the basis of prior inconsistent statements and their receipt of early parole or shortened parole periods. In addition, the reliability of their testimony was called into question by the numerous conflicts between their versions of the events.
Garza testified that earlier in the day on August 1, 1981, Martinez told him “I don’t want him [Thompson] there. I am going to take him out.” Rec., vol. VII, Proceedings, vol. 3, at 879. Later that evening, Garza saw Martinez hit Thompson once when they were in the t.v. room, id. at 896, and heard Martinez ask Thompson if he wanted to go outside and fight, id. at 912. He never saw Martinez take Thompson outside, id. at 896, 903, because he went to his room after trying to dissuade David Sedil-lo 6 from getting involved, id. at 875. Before leaving the t.v. room, Garza witnessed *937Sedillo poke Thompson in the shoulder with a safety pin he had pulled out of his pocket, and kick him. Id. at 872-73. Garza testified that after returning to his room, he looked out his window when he heard “very loud” screams from the direction of Desert Lodge, and he saw pool players run out the back door of Desert Lodge. Id. at 876-77. Finally, Garza testified to the following interchange with co-defendant Richard Lujan when Lujan came into his room about 5-10 minutes after he returned to it:
“Lujan said, ‘They’re going to rape him.’ That they had taken him outside. And then I said, ‘No, they’re going to kill him.’ And then he [Lujan] added, ‘I believe so.’ ”
Id. at 892.7
Robert Keener similarly testified to seeing Martinez hit Thompson in the t.v. room, but he claimed to have seen blood on Thompson’s face. Rec., vol. VII, Proceedings, vol. 4, at 920. Keener further stated that after hearing Thompson verbally refuse to go outside, he heard the screen door of Bonito Lodge slam, id. at 923, but he never heard any commotion or scuffling outside, id. at 957. Although Keener never testified that he saw Martinez leave Bonito Lodge, he asserted that he saw Martinez enter Bonito Lodge’s back door about 20-30 minutes after he heard the screen door slam. Id. at 924, 937.
Billy Ray Hughes testified that he saw Martinez in the t.v. room standing over Thompson, who was bleeding from his mouth or nose, but that Lujan prevented him from intervening. Id. at 996-97. He also claimed to have seen Martinez pick up a pool cue from the other end of the couch at that time. Id. at 1117. When he returned later with fellow inmates Robert Shaw and Thomas Hayward, he saw Martinez hitting Thompson about his face and chest area, and Sedillo kicking Thompson in the face. Id. at 998. Hughes never saw anybody, or anything happen, outside' of Bonito Lodge that evening. Id. at 1119.
Like Billy Ray Hughes, Andrew Mitchell testified that he saw Martinez standing over Thompson, and Thompson bleeding from the face. Id. at 1175-76. Mitchell asserted, though, that Martinez was kicking Thompson in the face while Sedillo and Lujan stood watch. Id. at 1174-75. Somewhat later he heard Martinez tell Thompson to go outside, heard more than one set of footsteps go outside, and then heard the screen door close. Id. at 1178. Yet still later, Mitchell claimed that as Lujan was wiping up blood from the t.v. room floor, someone rattled the window and Lujan went to the window and talked to the person. Lujan then got Martinez and both of them went outside. Id. at 1179-80.
Thomas Hayward testified that although he heard a fight going on in Bonito Lodge, he did not see anything because Lujan stopped him and fellow inmates Joey Swint, Andrew Mitchell, Robert Shaw, Billy Ray Hughes, and Robert Keener, from entering the t.v. room. Rec., vol. VIII, Proceedings, vol. 5, 1216-18. He also heard the fight move outside, and when he later looked out his window, saw Martinez hitting, and Sed-illo kicking, a bloody-faced but still conscious Thompson as he lay on the ground six feet behind Bonito Lodge. Id. at 1218-20. Hayward did not see any weapons when he looked out his window. Id. at 1280.
Disregarding all the conflicts in the testimony and the impeachment of the witnesses, which are matters for the jury in weighing the credibility of the evidence, the testimony of five of the state’s eyewitnesses indicated that Martinez, Sedillo, and Thompson were involved in an altercation in Bonito Lodge’s t.v. room the night of August l.8 The altercation included Martinez and Sedillo hitting and kicking Thompson, and Sedillo poking Thompson with a safety pin, to such an extent that *938Thompson was bleeding. Only one witness’ testimony linked Martinez and Sedillo to Thompson later the same evening in back of Bonito Lodge.
Against this evidentiary backdrop, the state called its final inmate witness, the “unavailable” Sam Love. The state read into the record substantially all of his preliminary hearing testimony.9 Love testified that moaning and groaning sounds from the direction of Bonito Lodge prompted him to turn around just as he was entering Desert Lodge. When he turned he saw Martinez, Sedillo, and Lujan “whipping on another dude.” Rec., vol. II, Preliminary Hearing Transcript, at 75. Love was unable to see the person being beaten to identify him, but his description of the person's clothes matched those Thompson had on when his body was discovered. Id. at 137-138. Sometime later, Love stated, he looked out the front door and saw Martinez, Sedillo, and Lujan carrying the person they had been beating towards Desert Lodge. Id. at 78. Still later, Love looked out the bathroom window and saw Martinez kick the person a couple of times, saw Sedillo hit him with a pool cue once, and saw Lujan watching the events. Id. at 79-83, 165-66. Five to ten minutes after he looked out the bathroom window, Love saw Martinez enter Desert Lodge and say something to someone, and saw Sedillo enter Desert Lodge and heard him showering. Id. at 84-87. As Sedillo left the bathroom, Love saw him sticking something in his pocket, the imprint of which looked like a “shank” or homemade knife 3 to 4 inches in length, with a blade 1 to 1 & lh inches wide. Id. at 93, 190-91.
The question we face is whether we can be sure “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of [the admission of Love’s prior testimony] did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24, 87 S.Ct. at 828; see also Satterwhite, 108 S.Ct. at 1798. Viewed in this context, the critical nature of Sam Love’s testimony is readily apparent. Prior to Love’s testimony, only Mitchell and Hayward placed Martinez out of doors the night of August 1, and only Hayward connected Martinez with Thompson outside of Bonito Lodge. Love not only corroborated Hayward’s testimony by linking Martinez to the beating of someone outside of Bonito Lodge, he also linked Martinez to the carrying of that person from behind Bonito Lodge to behind Desert Lodge, and the further beating of the person in back of Desert Lodge where Thompson’s body ultimately was discovered. Love’s testimony thus was the only evidence actually connecting Martinez to a person wearing clothes identical to Thompson during a sequence of events out of doors the night of August 1, and placing Martinez at the location where Thompson’s body was discovered. The prosecution even acknowledged that Love was the only state’s witness who would so testify. Rec., vol. VIII, Proceedings, vol. 5, at 1328-29. Moreover, Sedillo, who had pled guilty to second degree murder, testified that he alone was responsible for the murder. Rec., vol. IX, Proceedings, vol. 7, at 2030-32. In the second trial, where the jury assessed Love’s credibility, the vote was 10-2 for acquittal. Rec., vol. VIII, Proceedings, vol. 5, at 1329. Consequently, I cannot “confidently say, on the whole record, that the constitutional error [here] was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 681, 106 S.Ct. at 1436.
I am persuaded by my review of the case law that use of the Uniform Act, when applicable and available, should be a condition precedent to a finding of good faith and unavailability. Because the prosecution failed to employ the Act’s procedures, I conclude that it did not act in good faith and that Love therefore was not unavailable. My review of the record under the majority’s “totality of the circumstances” *939standard also convinces me that the prosecution’s efforts were not in good faith and that Love therefore was not unavailable. Because I conclude that the state court’s error in finding Love unavailable is not harmless, I would grant Martinez’ petition for habeas corpus contingent on the State of New Mexico’s decision to conduct a new trial.

. Ironically, Love was serving time for this forgery when he allegedly witnessed Martinez murder fellow inmate Thompson.

. The majority asserts that adoption of a per se rule would contravene the Supreme Court’s decisions in Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 88 S.Ct. 1318, 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968), and Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), because these cases hold that the prosecution’s efforts to secure a witness’ presence are to be measured against a “good faith" and “reasonableness” standard. Majority op. at 924 n. 1. The Uniform Act offers the only legally effective means of securing the presence of an out-of-state witness. In the context of dealing with an out-of-state witness, therefore, good faith and reasonableness necessarily require use of the procedures available under the Act.

. The Fifth Circuit in Mechler v. Procunier, 754 F.2d 1294, 1297 (5th Cir.1984), held that the prosecution acted in good faith in attempting to secure the presence of an out-of-state witness when, inter alia, it obtained two subpoenas pursuant to the Uniform Act, but Illinois authorities were unable to locate the witness.

. The alternative of detaining the witness for trial pursuant to the Uniform Act was not available according to the court. The California courts have interpreted the California Constitution to limit the amount of time a material witness can be held for trial to approximately two weeks, and the witness fled three weeks before the trial.

. The majority disputes the significance of facts I rely on in reaching this conclusion. Majority op. at 926 n. 3. The majority’s first argument, that Oklahoma’s decision to release Love on bond supports New Mexico’s contention that it had no reason to suspect Love would skip bond, is misfocused. Even assuming that Oklahoma and New Mexico authorities were equally well equipped to assess Love’s reliability, the prosecution had responsibility for making its own independent assessment. Love was a crucial witness in a murder trial in New Mexico, an important additional consideration. The majority’s second contention, that the incident of Love skipping bond had occurred prior to the first and second trials and yet he appeared voluntarily, disregards the changed circumstances before the third trial; namely, that Love was facing reincarceration in Oklahoma, and likely probation revocation in New Mexico.

. The original criminal complaint for Thompson’s murder named David Sedillo, as well as Martinez. Rec., vol. IV, State Court Record, at 10. Sedillo pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement with the State on June 15, 1982. Id. at 236.

. The last sentence of this statement, "I believe so,” was not admitted into evidence at the second trial. Rec., vol. VII, Proceedings, vol. 3, at 910-11.

. Martinez testified that he yelled at and hit Thompson in the t.v. room. Rec., vol. IX, Proceedings, vol. 7, at 2138-40. Sedillo also recounted the altercation between Martinez and Thompson. Id. at 2033.

. Sam Love's testimony at the second trial, rec., vol. V, State Court Transcripts, Transcript of Testimony of Sam Love, Jr. (Love Testimony), was also read into the record, primarily for purposes of impeachment by defense counsel. Rec., vol., VII, Proceedings, vol. 5, at 1347, 1376-86. Love testified to the same basic events at the second trial, but numerous details differed such as his claim that he saw Martinez with a "shank," or homemade knife. Rec., vol. V, Love Testimony, at 19-20.