Berger v. California

Background

The case involves a defendant convicted of robbery and kidnapping. The victim, Carl Arthur Dunston, had testified at a preliminary hearing but was reportedly in Colorado by the time of trial. The State introduced the transcript of Dunston’s preliminary-hearing testimony at trial after efforts to contact him reached relatives and an employer, and after two telegrams allegedly from him; no subpoena was served. A California appellate court upheld the conviction because it found Dunston absent by his own choice and said the defense had a chance to question him earlier. The State’s highest court in California denied further review.

Reasoning

Shortly after those events, this Court decided Barber v. Page, which held that a State may not use a witness’s earlier testimony at trial unless it made a good-faith effort to secure the witness’s presence. The sole question here was whether that new rule should apply to this defendant. The Court explained that not being able to question a witness at trial can harm the truth-finding process because judges and jurors lose the chance to assess witness credibility. The Court rejected California’s reliance on older standards and found Barber’s rule should be applied retroactively.

Real world impact

The Court granted the defendant leave to proceed without fees, granted review, vacated the state appellate judgment, and sent the case back for reconsideration under Barber’s rule. States must show good-faith efforts to obtain missing witnesses before using earlier testimony, and convictions that rested on such testimony may be reopened for review.