To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
Languages
Recent
Show all languages
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Compulsory Process Clause

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution allows defendants in criminal cases to secure witnesses in their favor through the issuance of a court-ordered subpoena. The Clause is generally read as allowing defendants to present their own case at trial, though several specific limitations have been announced by the Supreme Court of the United States since this rule began.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    41 801
    367 796
    3 618
    3 453
    968
  • What is the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause?
  • Due Process of Law: Crash Course Government and Politics #28
  • 5th Amendment -- Self Incrimination HD
  • CLP Speaker Series - Democracy and Due Process: Leveraging the Law for a Just Outcome
  • Important-TAX AUDIT REPORT- अब FORM 3CD में नहीं देनी पड़ेगी ये DETAILS | CBDT Circular No 6/2018

Transcription

Contents

Text

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.[1]

History

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

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

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

  1. ^ "Bill of Rights". Archives.gov. Retrieved 2012-04-18.
  2. ^ United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 187, 190 (C.C.D. Va. 1807)
  3. ^ Hewett 2007, p. 275.
  4. ^ Kime 2011, p. 1503.
  5. ^ Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U.S. 409, 443 (1897)
  6. ^ Kime 2011, p. 1503-1504.
  7. ^ Hewett 2007, p. 274.
  8. ^ Kime 2011, p. 1504.
  9. ^ In re Oliver, 333 U.S. at 273 (1948).
  10. ^ Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967).
  11. ^ 388 U.S. at 18-19.
  12. ^ Kime 2011, p. 1505
  13. ^ 484 U.S. at 417.
  14. ^ 484 U.S. at 411.
  15. ^ Heiderscheit 1989, p. 502
  16. ^ Kime 2011, p. 1525.
  17. ^ United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 304 (1998)
  18. ^ Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37, 43 (1996)
  19. ^ Kime 2011, p. 1525-1527.

References

This page was last edited on 2 November 2018, at 02:52
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.