Compulsory Process Clause: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
→Remedies: Corrected Citation |
||
| (75 intermediate revisions by 26 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Clause within the United States Constitution}} |
|||
{{orphan|date=January 2010}} |
|||
{{United States constitutional law}} |
|||
The '''Compulsory Process Clause''' within the [[Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution]] lets criminal case defendants attain witnesses in their favor by way of a court-ordered [[subpoena]]. The Clause is generally interpreted as letting defendants present their own case at trial, though several specific limitations have been placed by the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] since this rule began. |
|||
{{US Constitution article series}} |
|||
[[Image:Bill of Rights Pg1of1 AC.jpg|190px|thumb|The Bill of Rights in the [[National Archives and Records Administration|National Archives]]]] |
|||
==Text== |
|||
The '''Compulsory Process Clause''' of the [[Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution]] provides that "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to have compulsory process for obtaining [[witness]]es in his favor." |
|||
{{quote|In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to have compulsory process for obtaining [[witness]]es in his favor.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html|title=Bill of Rights|publisher=Archives.gov|access-date=2012-04-18}}</ref>}} |
|||
==History== |
|||
The compulsory process means that a court can order a person to come to court to testify and give evidence in a case. If the person fails to heed the court, subpoena is served on him/her. He/she can be prosecuted, even arrested, for contempt of the court. |
|||
The Compulsory Process Clause was part of the Sixth Amendment, which was ratified in 1791. Between ratification and the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]], there were very limited instances in which a court dealt with compulsory process. One important example is the [[Burr conspiracy#Trial|trial]] of Vice President [[Aaron Burr]], where Burr tried to subpoena documents from the [[Thomas Jefferson|President]] in order to sustain his defense. Though the case was heard in Federal Circuit Court the presiding judge was Chief Justice [[John Marshall]] who ordered the papers be issued, invoking the Sixth Amendment.<ref>United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 187, 190 (C.C.D. Va. 1807)</ref>{{sfn|Hewett|2007|p=275}} |
|||
After the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, the Supreme Court dealt with a series of cases regarding the guarantees offered by the Due Process Clause.{{sfn|Kime|2011|p=1503}} The first case to evaluate the procedural trial rights of defendants in terms of the Due Process Clause was the 1897 decision in ''Hovey v. Elliot''. In ''Hovey'', the Supreme Court specifically applied the Due Process Clause to fair trial guarantees, holding that due process "secures an 'inherent right of defense'".<ref>''[[Hovey v. Elliott]]'', 167 U.S. 409, 443 (1897)</ref> This doctrine eventually came to protect the defendant's ability to "present [[exculpatory evidence]] and testimony of witnesses".{{sfn|Kime|2011|p=1503-1504}} For example, the Court in ''[[Brady v. Maryland]]'' used the Due Process Clause to require the prosecution in criminal proceedings to disclose evidence that is favorable to the defendant prior to a trial.{{sfn|Hewett|2007|p=274}} |
|||
The Compulsory Process Clause was construed to prohibit the application of a state statute that made persons charged or convicted as co-participants in a common crime incompetent to testify on behalf of one another. Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967). |
|||
The Court's due process jurisprudence was expanded with the 1948 decision in ''[[In re Oliver]]'' which revised the breadth of the fundamental fairness doctrine.{{sfn|Kime|2011|p=1504}} The Court wrote: |
|||
{{US Constitution}} |
|||
{{quote|A person's right to reasonable notice of a charge against him, and an opportunity to be heard in his defense—a right to his day in court—are basic in our system of jurisprudence; and these rights include, as a minimum, a right to examine the witnesses against him, to offer testimony, and to be represented by counsel.<ref>''[[In re Oliver]]'', 333 U.S. at 273 (1948).</ref>}} |
|||
In ''[[Washington v. Texas]]'' (1967), the Supreme Court held that the Clause barred a state law that made persons charged or convicted as co-participants in a common crime incompetent to testify on behalf of one another.<ref>''[[Washington v. Texas]]'', 388 U.S. 14 (1967).</ref> This was a holding based on the Due Process Clause, a departure from the ''Oliver'' cases. [[Chief Justice Earl Warren]], who wrote the [[majority opinion]], stated that compulsory process was critical to the very ability to "present a defense...[a] defendant's version of the facts".<ref name=RIGHTS/> This broad right was necessary to note as its absence would make the right to compel witnesses futile.<ref>{{harvnb|Kime|2011|p=1505}}</ref> |
|||
[[Category:1791 in law]] |
|||
However, in ''[[Taylor v. Illinois]]'' (1988), the Court rejected a challenge to witness preclusion rules, holding that the Clause did not provide for an "absolute" right for defendants.<ref>[https://supreme.justia.com/us/484/400/case.html 484 U.S.] at 417.</ref> The Court held that "The Compulsory Process Clause provides [the defendant] with an effective weapon, but it is a weapon that cannot be used irresponsibly".<ref name=RIGHT/> There are "countervailing public interests" which weigh against an absolute position of applying the Clause; this signaled a major turn since ''Washington'' two decades earlier.<ref>{{harvnb|Heiderscheit|1989|p=502}}</ref> |
|||
==Remedies== |
|||
{{US-gov-stub}} |
|||
In modern practice, a violation of the Compulsory Process Clause leads to the reversal of a conviction unless the original error is "harmless".{{sfn|Kime|2011|p=1525}} This occurs because the exclusion of defense evidence can "significantly undermine fundamental elements of the [defendant's] defense".<ref>[[United States v. Scheffer]], 523 U.S. 303, 315 (1998)</ref><ref>''Montana v. Egelhoff'', 518 U.S. 37, 43 (1996)</ref> The remedy is not automatic reversal only because not every Sixth Amendment error is automatically a Due Process error.{{sfn|Kime|2011|p=1525-1527}} |
|||
==Other sources of a right to compulsory process== |
|||
The [[Due process|Due Process Clauses]] of the [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifth]] and [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendments]] also require compulsory process as an element of [[due process]]. State statutes and constitutions are another source of the right to confront witnesses. |
|||
==Notes== |
|||
{{reflist|2|refs= |
|||
<ref name="RIGHTS">[https://supreme.justia.com/us/388/14/case.html 388 U.S.] at 18-19.</ref> |
|||
<ref name="RIGHT">[https://supreme.justia.com/us/484/400/case.html 484 U.S.] at 411.</ref> |
|||
}} |
|||
==References== |
|||
{{refbegin}} |
|||
*{{Cite journal |
|||
|title=''Taylor v. Illinois'': The New and Not -- so -- New Approach to Defense Witness Preclusion Sanctions for Criminal Discovery Rule Violations |
|||
|journal=[[Georgia Law Review]] |
|||
|year=1989 |
|||
|last=Heiderscheit |
|||
|first=John |
|||
|volume=23 |
|||
|issue=1 |
|||
|pages=479–508 |
|||
}} |
|||
*{{Cite journal |
|||
|title=A More Reliable Right To Present a Defense |
|||
|journal=[[Georgetown Law Journal]] |
|||
|year=2007 |
|||
|last=Hewett |
|||
|first=Martin A. |
|||
|volume=96 |
|||
|issue=1 |
|||
|pages=274–315 |
|||
|url=http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/pdf/96-1/Hewett.PDF |
|||
|access-date=2012-04-07 |
|||
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110914135507/http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/pdf/96-1/Hewett.PDF |
|||
|archive-date=2011-09-14 |
|||
|url-status=dead |
|||
}} |
|||
*{{Cite journal |
|||
|title=Can a right be less than the sum of its parts? |
|||
|journal=[[American Criminal Law Review]] |
|||
|year=2011 |
|||
|last=Kime |
|||
|first=Stacey |
|||
|volume=48 |
|||
|issue=1 |
|||
|pages=1501–1529 |
|||
|url=http://www.americancriminallawreview.com/Drupal/sites/default/files/individual_articles/Kime%20Note.pdf |
|||
|url-status=dead |
|||
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130115084711/http://www.americancriminallawreview.com/Drupal/sites/default/files/individual_articles/Kime%20Note.pdf |
|||
|archive-date=2013-01-15 |
|||
}} |
|||
{{refend}} |
|||
{{Sixth Amendment|compulsory|state=expanded}} |
|||
[[Category:Compulsory Process Clause case law| ]] |
|||
[[Category:United States constitutional criminal procedure]] |
|||
[[Category:Clauses of the United States Constitution]] |
|||
Latest revision as of 17:27, 17 March 2024
The Compulsory Process Clause within the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution lets criminal case defendants attain witnesses in their favor by way of a court-ordered subpoena. The Clause is generally interpreted as letting defendants present their own case at trial, though several specific limitations have been placed by the Supreme Court of the United States since this rule began.
Text
[edit]In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.[1]
History
[edit]The Compulsory Process Clause was part of the Sixth Amendment, which was ratified in 1791. Between ratification and the Fourteenth Amendment, there were very limited instances in which a court dealt with compulsory process. One important example is the trial of Vice President Aaron Burr, where Burr tried to subpoena documents from the President in order to sustain his defense. Though the case was heard in Federal Circuit Court the presiding judge was Chief Justice John Marshall who ordered the papers be issued, invoking the Sixth Amendment.[2][3]
After the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, the Supreme Court dealt with a series of cases regarding the guarantees offered by the Due Process Clause.[4] The first case to evaluate the procedural trial rights of defendants in terms of the Due Process Clause was the 1897 decision in Hovey v. Elliot. In Hovey, the Supreme Court specifically applied the Due Process Clause to fair trial guarantees, holding that due process "secures an 'inherent right of defense'".[5] This doctrine eventually came to protect the defendant's ability to "present exculpatory evidence and testimony of witnesses".[6] For example, the Court in Brady v. Maryland used the Due Process Clause to require the prosecution in criminal proceedings to disclose evidence that is favorable to the defendant prior to a trial.[7]
The Court's due process jurisprudence was expanded with the 1948 decision in In re Oliver which revised the breadth of the fundamental fairness doctrine.[8] The Court wrote:
A person's right to reasonable notice of a charge against him, and an opportunity to be heard in his defense—a right to his day in court—are basic in our system of jurisprudence; and these rights include, as a minimum, a right to examine the witnesses against him, to offer testimony, and to be represented by counsel.[9]
In Washington v. Texas (1967), the Supreme Court held that the Clause barred a state law that made persons charged or convicted as co-participants in a common crime incompetent to testify on behalf of one another.[10] This was a holding based on the Due Process Clause, a departure from the Oliver cases. Chief Justice Earl Warren, who wrote the majority opinion, stated that compulsory process was critical to the very ability to "present a defense...[a] defendant's version of the facts".[11] This broad right was necessary to note as its absence would make the right to compel witnesses futile.[12]
However, in Taylor v. Illinois (1988), the Court rejected a challenge to witness preclusion rules, holding that the Clause did not provide for an "absolute" right for defendants.[13] The Court held that "The Compulsory Process Clause provides [the defendant] with an effective weapon, but it is a weapon that cannot be used irresponsibly".[14] There are "countervailing public interests" which weigh against an absolute position of applying the Clause; this signaled a major turn since Washington two decades earlier.[15]
Remedies
[edit]In modern practice, a violation of the Compulsory Process Clause leads to the reversal of a conviction unless the original error is "harmless".[16] This occurs because the exclusion of defense evidence can "significantly undermine fundamental elements of the [defendant's] defense".[17][18] The remedy is not automatic reversal only because not every Sixth Amendment error is automatically a Due Process error.[19]
Other sources of a right to compulsory process
[edit]The Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments also require compulsory process as an element of due process. State statutes and constitutions are another source of the right to confront witnesses.
Notes
[edit]- ^ "Bill of Rights". Archives.gov. Retrieved 2012-04-18.
- ^ United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 187, 190 (C.C.D. Va. 1807)
- ^ Hewett 2007, p. 275.
- ^ Kime 2011, p. 1503.
- ^ Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U.S. 409, 443 (1897)
- ^ Kime 2011, p. 1503-1504.
- ^ Hewett 2007, p. 274.
- ^ Kime 2011, p. 1504.
- ^ In re Oliver, 333 U.S. at 273 (1948).
- ^ Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967).
- ^ 388 U.S. at 18-19.
- ^ Kime 2011, p. 1505
- ^ 484 U.S. at 417.
- ^ 484 U.S. at 411.
- ^ Heiderscheit 1989, p. 502
- ^ Kime 2011, p. 1525.
- ^ United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 315 (1998)
- ^ Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37, 43 (1996)
- ^ Kime 2011, p. 1525-1527.
References
[edit]- Heiderscheit, John (1989). "Taylor v. Illinois: The New and Not -- so -- New Approach to Defense Witness Preclusion Sanctions for Criminal Discovery Rule Violations". Georgia Law Review. 23 (1): 479–508.
- Hewett, Martin A. (2007). "A More Reliable Right To Present a Defense" (PDF). Georgetown Law Journal. 96 (1): 274–315. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-09-14. Retrieved 2012-04-07.
- Kime, Stacey (2011). "Can a right be less than the sum of its parts?" (PDF). American Criminal Law Review. 48 (1): 1501–1529. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-01-15.