Washington v. Texas
388 U.S. 14 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Sixth Amendment's Compulsory Process Clause, which grants a criminal defendant the right to obtain witnesses in their favor, is a fundamental right incorporated to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. A state law that arbitrarily bars a whole category of defense witnesses, such as co-participants in the same crime, from testifying violates this right.
Facts:
- Jackie Washington, an 18-year-old, dated Jean Carter until her mother forbade it, after which Carter began dating the deceased.
- Motivated by jealousy, Washington and several other boys drove around Dallas on August 29, 1964, looking for a gun.
- The group met up with Charles Fuller, who joined them with his shotgun.
- They proceeded to Carter's home, where some of the boys threw bricks at the house.
- When the deceased and Carter's mother came out onto the porch, either Washington or Fuller fired the shotgun, fatally wounding the deceased.
- At trial, Washington testified that Fuller was intoxicated, had taken the gun from him, and had fired the fatal shot after Washington tried to persuade him to leave and ran away.
- Washington sought to have Fuller testify in his defense, and the record indicated Fuller would have corroborated Washington's account.
- Fuller was the only person other than Washington who knew exactly who fired the shot and whether Washington attempted to prevent it.
Procedural Posture:
- Jackie Washington was prosecuted for murder with malice in Dallas County, Texas.
- At trial, the judge sustained the State's objection to the defense calling Charles Fuller as a witness, based on state statutes barring co-participants from testifying for each other.
- A jury convicted Washington and sentenced him to 50 years in prison.
- Washington appealed his conviction to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's highest court for criminal cases.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
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 a state statute that prevents persons charged as co-participants in the same crime from testifying for one another violate a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Warren
Yes, the state statute violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment right. The right of an accused to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor is a fundamental element of due process of law and is therefore applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. This right is not merely the right to compel a witness's attendance but also includes the right to put the witness on the stand and have their testimony heard. The Texas statutes, which arbitrarily disqualified an entire category of witnesses (co-participants) from testifying for the defense based on an a priori assumption that they are unworthy of belief, are unconstitutional. The rule is irrational, especially since an accomplice could testify for the prosecution, where their incentive to lie might be greater, but not for the defense.
Concurring - Justice Harlan
Yes, the conviction should be reversed, but not based on the incorporation of the Compulsory Process Clause. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, viewed as a 'rational continuum' against arbitrary government action, is sufficient to find the Texas law unconstitutional. The law violates due process because it creates an arbitrary and unjustified discrimination between the prosecution and the defense. The state recognized the testimony of a co-participant as relevant and competent by allowing the prosecution to call such a witness, but then arbitrarily barred its use by the defendant, which is fundamentally unfair.
Analysis:
This landmark decision officially incorporated the Sixth Amendment's Compulsory Process Clause to the states, continuing the trend of applying key Bill of Rights protections to state criminal proceedings. The ruling significantly broadened the right beyond merely securing a witness's presence (subpoena power) to include the substantive right to present their testimony. By striking down an arbitrary, categorical exclusion of a class of witnesses, the Court shifted the focus from outdated competency rules to the modern approach of letting the jury hear relevant evidence and determine witness credibility for itself. This decision invalidates state evidentiary rules that act as a barrier to a defendant's ability to present a complete defense.
Unlock the full brief for Washington v. Texas