Barber v. Page

Decision Date23 April 1968
Docket NumberNo. 703,703
Citation20 L.Ed.2d 255,390 U.S. 719,88 S.Ct. 1318
PartiesJack Allen BARBER, Petitioner, v. Ray H. PAGE, Warden
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Ira G. Rothgerber, Jr., Denver, Colo., for petitioner.

Charles L. Owens, Oklahoma City, Okl., for respondent.

Mr. Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question presented is whether petitioner was deprived of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to be confronted with the witnesses against him at his trial in Oklahoma for armed robbery, at which the principal evidence against him consisted of the reading of a transcript of the preliminary hearing testimony of a witness who at the time of trial was incarcerated in a federal prison in Texas.

Petitioner and one Woods were jointly charged with the robbery, and at the preliminary hearing were represented by the same retained counsel, a Mr. Parks. During the course of the hearing, Woods agreed to waive his privilege against self-incrimination. Parks then withdrew as Woods' attorney but continued to represent petitioner. Thereupon Woods proceeded to give testimony that incriminated petitioner. Parks did not cross-examine Woods, although an attorney for another codefendant did.

By the time petitioner was brought to trial some seven months later, Woods was incarcerated in a federal penitentiary in Texarkana, Texas, about 225 miles from the trial court in Oklahoma. The State proposed to introduce against petitioner the transcript of Woods' testimony at the preliminary hearing on the ground that Woods was unavailable to testify because he was outside the jurisdiction. Petitioner objected to that course on the ground that it would deprive him of his right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. His objection was overruled and the transcript was admitted and read to the jury, which found him guilty. On appeal the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his conviction. Barber v. State, 388 P.2d 320 (Okl.Cr.App. 1963).

Petitioner then sought federal habeas corpus, claiming that the use of the transcript of Woods' testimony in his state trial deprived him of his federal constitutional right to confrontation in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. His contention was rejected by the District Court and on appeal the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, one judge dissenting, affirmed. 381 F.2d 479 (1966). We granted certiorari, 389 U.S. 819, 88 S.Ct. 115, 19 L.Ed.2d 69 (1967), to consider petitioner's denial of confrontation claim, and we reverse.

Many years ago this Court stated that '(t)he primary object of the (Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment) * * * was to prevent depositions or ex parte affidavits * * * being used against the prisoner in lieu of a personal examination and cross-examination of the witness in which the accused has an opportunity, not only of testing the recollection and sifting the conscience of the witness, but of compelling him to stand face to face with the jury in order that they may look at him, and judge by his demeanor upon the stand and the manner in which he gives his testimony whether he is worthy of belief.' Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 242—243, 15 S.Ct. 337, 339, 39 L.Ed. 409 (1895). More recently, in holding the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, this Court said, 'There are few subjects, perhaps, upon which this Court and other courts have been more nearly unanimous than in their expressions of belief that the right of confrontation and cross-examination is an essential and fundamental requirement for the kind of fair trial which is this country's constitutional goal.' Pointer v. State of Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 405, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 1068, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965). See also Douglas v. State of Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 85 S.Ct. 1074, 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965).

It is true that there has traditionally been an exception to the confrontation requirement where a witness is unavailable and has given testimony at previous judicial proceedings against the same defendant which was subject to cross-examination by that defendant. E.g., Mattox v. United States, supra (witnesses who testified in original trial died prior to the second trial). This exception has been explained as arising from necessity and has been justified on the ground that the right of cross-examination initially afforded provides substantial compliance with the purposes behind the confrontation requirement. See 5 Wigmore, Evidence §§ 1395—1396, 1402 (3d ed. 1940); C. McCormick, Evidence §§ 231, 234 (1954).

Here the State argues that the introduction of the transcript is within that exception on the grounds that Woods was outside the jurisdiction and therefore 'unavailable' at the time of trial, and that the right of cross-examination was afforded petitioner at the preliminary hearing, although not utilized then by him. For the purpose of this decision we shall assume that petitioner made a valid waiver of his right to cross-examine Woods at the preliminary hearing, although such an assumption seems open to considerable question under the circumstances.1

We start with the fact that the State made absolutely no effort to obtain the presence of Woods at trial other than to ascertain that he was in a federal prison outside Oklahoma. It must be acknowledged that various courts2 and commentators3 have heretofore assumed that the mere absence of a witness from the jurisdiction was sufficient ground for dispensing with confrontation on the theory that 'it is impossible to compel his attendance, because the process of the trial Court is of no force without the jurisdiction, and the party desiring his testimony is therefore helpless.' 5 Wigmore, Evidence § 1404 (3d ed. 1940).

Whatever may have been the accuracy of that theory at one time, it is clear that at the present time increased cooperation between the States themselves and between the States and the Federal Government has largely deprived it of any continuing validity in the criminal law.4 For example, in the case of a prospective witness currently in federal custody, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(5) gives federal courts the power to issue writs of habeas corpus ad testificandum at the request of state prosecutorial authorities. See Gilmore v. United States, 129 F.2d 199, 202 (C.A.10th Cir. 1942); United States v. McGaha, 205 F.Supp. 949 (D.C.E.D.Tenn. 1962). In addition, it is the policy of the United States Bureau of Prisons to permit federal prisoners to testify in state court criminal proceedings pursuant to writs of habeas corpus ad testificandum issued out of state courts.5 Cf. Lawrence v. Willingham, 373 F.2d 731 (C.A.10th Cir. 1967) (habeas corpus ad prosequendum).

In this case the state authorities made no effort to avail themselves of either of the above alternative means of seeking to secure Woods' presence at petitioner's trial. The Court of Appeals majority appears to have reasoned that because the State would have had to request an exercise of discretion on the part of federal authorities, it was under no obligation to make any such request. Yet as Judge Aldrich, sitting by designation, pointed out in dissent below, 'the possibility of a refusal is not the equivalent of asking and receiving a rebuff.' 381 F.2d, at 481. In short, a witness is not 'unavailable' for purposes of the foregoing exception to the confrontation requirement unless the prosecutorial authorities have made a good-faith effort to obtain his presence at trial. The State made no such effort here, and, so far as this record reveals, the sole...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1580 cases
  • People v. Ashford
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • September 16, 1968
    ...Following briefing on appeal, but prior to oral argument, the United States Supreme Court filed its decision in Barber v. Page (1968) 390 U.S. 719, 88 S.Ct. 1318, 20 L.Ed.2d 255. The court overturned, on collateral attack by application for a writ of habeas corpus, a conviction predicated u......
  • Terry, In re, Cr. 13949
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • May 24, 1971
    ...that the testimony of his 1959 conviction was inadmissible, since that conviction was assertedly invalid under Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 88 S.Ct. 1318, 20 L.Ed.2d 255. The reason for his apparent delay in presenting this contention undoubtedly is that Barber v. Page was not decided unti......
  • People v. Huntsman
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • March 9, 1984
    ...and fundamental requirement for the kind of fair trial which is this country's constitutional goal." (Barber v. Page (1968) 390 U.S. 719, 721, 88 S.Ct. 1318, 1320, 20 L.Ed.2d 255, 258) quoting Pointer v. Texas (1965) 380 U.S. 400, 405, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 1068, 13 L.Ed.2d 923, 927; see also Peop......
  • People v. Windfield
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • January 4, 2021
    ...bears the burden of showing that the witness is unavailable and that it made a "good-faith effort" ( Barber v. Page (1968) 390 U.S. 719, 725, 88 S. Ct. 1318, 20 L. Ed. 2d 255 ), or, in the alternative, exercised reasonable or due diligence to obtain the witness's presence at trial. ( People......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 books & journal articles
  • Massachusetts paves the way: a comparison between the confrontation right guaranteed by the United States and Massachusetts Constitutions in light of Crawford v. Washington.
    • United States
    • Suffolk University Law Review Vol. 41 No. 1, December 2007
    • December 22, 2007
    ...399 U.S. 149, 158 (1970) (listing different purposes including importance of accused's right to cross-examine witnesses); Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 725 (1968) (observing importance of jury's opportunity to observe witness demeanor); Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 242 (1895) (sta......
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...Baraka H., In re, 6 Cal. App. 4th 1039, 8 Cal. Rptr. 2d 221 (1st Dist. 1992)—Ch. 5-A, §2.1.1(1)(b)[3][b]; §5.1.3(3) Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 88 S. Ct. 1318, 20 L. Ed. 2d 255 (1968)—Ch. 3-B, §1.2.2(1)(b)[1] Barnett v. Superior Court, 50 Cal. 4th 890, 114 Cal. Rptr. 3d 576, 237 P.3d 980 ......
  • Trials
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • August 1, 2022
    ...“unavailable” if the government is unable, despite good-faith efforts, to procure that witness’s attendance at trial. See Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 724 (1968) (good-faith effort not established when the state made “no effort” to allow the witness to testify while incarcerated); see also......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Appendices
    • March 30, 2022
    ...Cal.App.4th 1440, §9:93.2 Banks v. Dretke (2004) 540 UIndesign backup CDDLIndesign backup CDDL.S. 668, 696, §8:30.1 Barber v. Page (1968) 390 U.S. 719, 724-725, §9:16 Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 33 L.Ed.2d 101, §6:21.5.1 Barrett v. Superior Court (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 1, §8:12.6 Barrie v......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 forms
1 provisions

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT