Mattox v. United States
156 U.S. 237, 15 S.Ct. 337, 39 L.Ed. 409 (1895)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause is not violated by admitting the prior testimony of a deceased witness from a former trial where the defendant had the opportunity for cross-examination, and such testimony cannot be impeached by the witness's subsequent contradictory statements if the witness was never confronted with them, as the foundational requirement for impeachment does not have an exception for deceased witnesses.
Facts:
- Clyde Mattox was accused of committing a homicide in December 1889 in the Indian Territory.
- At Mattox's first trial, two witnesses for the prosecution, Thomas Whitman and George Thornton, testified against him.
- After the first trial, but before the subsequent trial at issue, both Whitman and Thornton died.
- After testifying at the first trial, Whitman allegedly made statements to two other individuals, James and Violet, that contradicted his sworn testimony.
- Whitman allegedly told James that his testimony had been false, that he could not see who did the shooting because it was too dark, and offered to leave the country for $50.
- Whitman allegedly told Violet that he had testified against Mattox only because he had been threatened in the courthouse by a man named Stiles.
Procedural Posture:
- Clyde Mattox was convicted of murder in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.
- On a writ of error, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial.
- A second trial of Mattox resulted in a hung jury.
- At a third trial in the same court, Mattox was again convicted and sentenced to death.
- Mattox then brought the present writ of error to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does admitting a transcript of testimony from a deceased witness who testified at a defendant's previous trial violate the Confrontation Clause, and if not, can that testimony be impeached by contradictory statements the witness made after the trial when the witness's death prevented laying the required foundation for impeachment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Brown
No. Admitting the prior testimony of a deceased witness who was subject to cross-examination does not violate the Confrontation Clause, and that testimony cannot be impeached with subsequent contradictory statements unless the proper foundation was laid. The primary purpose of the Confrontation Clause is to prevent trial by ex parte affidavit and to secure the opportunity for cross-examination. That opportunity was provided to the defendant at the former trial, satisfying the constitutional requirement. While defendants benefit from the jury seeing a witness's demeanor, this general rule must yield to the necessities of the case, similar to the well-established exception for dying declarations. To allow a convicted criminal to go free simply because a witness has died would be an unwarrantable extension of constitutional protection. Regarding the impeachment evidence, the nearly universal rule is that a witness must be given the opportunity to explain or deny alleged contradictory statements before they can be used for impeachment. The death of the witness does not create an exception to this rule. A contrary holding would create a strong temptation for perjury and the fabrication of testimony, as witnesses could be produced to invent statements allegedly made by a deceased person with no fear of contradiction.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Shiras
Yes. While the prior testimony was likely admissible, the defendant should have been permitted to introduce the evidence of the deceased witness's contradictory statements. The rule requiring a foundation for impeachment is a rule of convenient procedure, not a substantive rule of evidence, and should be relaxed when necessity dictates. The majority creates a logical inconsistency by relaxing the constitutional right of confrontation out of necessity (the witness's death) while rigidly enforcing a common law rule of evidence for the very same reason. This sacrifices the substance of proof for the orderliness of procedure. The ruling results in manifest injustice: the government benefits from the deceased witness's testimony, but the defendant is deprived of the right to prove that the testimony was untrustworthy. The risk of fabricated impeachment testimony is mitigated because the impeaching witnesses must testify under oath and face perjury charges, whereas the deceased witness is beyond all human justice.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the 'former testimony' exception to the Confrontation Clause, affirming that a prior opportunity to cross-examine an unavailable witness satisfies the constitutional requirement. More significantly, it establishes a rigid adherence to the foundational rule for impeachment with prior inconsistent statements, refusing to create an exception for deceased witnesses. The decision prioritizes procedural regularity and the perceived stability of sworn testimony over a defendant's ability to introduce potentially exculpatory evidence, highlighting a tension between procedural rules and the substantive search for truth. This ruling makes it extremely difficult to challenge the testimony of a witness who becomes unavailable after testifying.
Unlock the full brief for Mattox v. United States