Washington v. Texas

1967-06-12

Headline: Court extends the defendant’s right to call witnesses to the states, blocks Texas rule that barred a co-participant’s testimony, and reverses a murder conviction that excluded a crucial defense witness.

Holding: The Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process applies to state trials through the Fourteenth Amendment, and that Texas’s rule barring coparticipants from testifying violated the defendant’s right and required reversal.

Real World Impact:

Prevents states from categorically blocking coparticipant witnesses from testifying for defendants.
Gives defendants in state trials constitutional ground to call crucial witnesses.
Leaves common privileges and mental-capacity rules intact, not addressed by this decision.

Topics: right to call witnesses, state criminal trials, defense rights, evidence rules

Summary

Background

An 18-year-old defendant, Jackie Washington, was tried in Dallas County, Texas, for murder and sentenced to 50 years. Washington testified that a man named Charles Fuller, who had joined a group of boys with a shotgun, fired the fatal shot. Fuller, the only other person who could say who fired and whether Washington tried to stop him, had already been convicted and was jailed. Texas statutes then in force barred persons charged or convicted as coparticipants from testifying for one another, and the trial judge refused to let Fuller testify. The conviction was affirmed by the state appeals court, and the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the case.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether the Sixth Amendment right to have compulsory process for witnesses applies to state trials through the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of fair process. The Justices held that the right to present witnesses is a fundamental element of a fair trial and that a rule which arbitrarily excludes a witness who is capable and whose testimony is vital violates that right. The opinion explained that the Texas rule was inconsistent and irrational because such witnesses could still be called by the State and because exceptions showed the rule did not reliably prevent perjury.

Real world impact

The decision means that state laws cannot categorically block coparticipant witnesses from testifying for a defendant when their testimony is relevant and material. Defendants in state criminal cases gain a constitutional basis to call such witnesses. The Court left untouched valid privileges and rules that disqualify witnesses who are mentally incapable or otherwise incompetent to testify.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Harlan agreed the conviction must be reversed but said he did not accept the broad view that the Fourteenth Amendment ‘incorporates’ the Bill of Rights; he saw the problem as an unconstitutional, arbitrary discrimination between the prosecution and the defense in calling the same witness.