Archives : 2005 : January

The Sixth Amendment Right To Compulsory Process of Witnesses: Compulsory Does Not Always Mean Mandatory and Other Quirks of Due Process

January 30th, 2005

By Swazi Taylor, Esq. and Natalie Banach

The Constitution of the United States, signed on September 17, 1787, still remains the cornerstone of any free societys system of justice. The civil liberties guaranteed to every American citizen are contained within the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, namely Amendments I – X (one through ten). These federal constitutional rights are guaranteed equally to all citizens of each state through the Fourteenth Amendment. The protections of the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments typically apply when an U.S. citizen is suspected or accused of a crime within the U.S. These rights range from the right to be secure in our homes, to the right to trial by a jury of our peers, the right to confront witnesses, the right to demand the production of evidence, the right to remain silent, the right to counsel and the right to due process of law. The essence of each of the rights enumerated in these Amendments is to ensure that the accused receives equal and fair treatment under the law.

Defendant’s Rights When Charged with a Crime

When a criminal accusation is filed against an individual, that individuals rights are impacted and hang in the balance while the proceedings continue. Therefore, contained within the criminal justice system, are checks and balances to ensure that the accused receives fair and equal treatment. Some of these checks and balances are rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Some are rights guaranteed by the State Constitutions and some are contained within ARTICLESs and case law. Wherever these protections are found, there are two fundamental principles that prevail: that the accused is cloaked in a presumption of innocence and that this presumption continues unless and until the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the crime(s) charged. These are the basic tenets of any American criminal justice system, federal or state.

The trial of an accused in the criminal justice system is governed by many rules of law, among which are rules of evidence. The basic tenet of the criminal system is to ensure the accused a fair trial. To that end, the Sixth Amendment provides in relevant part:

the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial juryandbe informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. (Emphasis supplied.)

Right to Compulsory Process

It is the right of compulsory process, which is at the heart of this writing. This right to produce to compel the attendance of witnesses at trial is so inextricably intertwined with the rights to a jury trial and to present a defense that it too must be constitutionally required. The right to establish a defense is a fundamental part of due process. Thus, to ensure that the right exists in substance, an accused must be afforded a legal vehicle by which to present such a defense. Compulsory process, or the right to use the courts subpoena power, is that vehicle. However, this right is not without its limitations. Consequently, in Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987), the United States Supreme Court held that in deciding whether or not to afford the accused compulsory process, a due process, rather than a compulsory process analysis, shall be used. In other words, the trial court would evaluate the defense request to compel the production of evidence by determining whether or not due process of law requires its production. The information that is presented at a criminal trial is termed evidence. At trial, each side may present evidence to convince the fact-finder (the judge or jury) of the truth or falsity of any given fact. Evidence can take many forms. For example, the California Evidence Code Section 140 defines evidence as testimony, writings, material objects, or other things presented to the senses that are offered to prove the existence or nonexistence of a fact. In general, evidence may take the form of pictures, reports, scientific analyses, lab results, photographs, actual objects, as well as live testimony, that is, testimony from witnesses. Testimonial evidence is obtained through direct examination by the prosecutor, as well as through cross-examination by counsel for the accused, by way of a question-and-answer format. Both the prosecutor and the accuseds counsel attempt to elicit specific information in an orderly way. However, not all evidence will be presented to the fact-finder. Remember, it is the proponent of the evidence who first must convince the judge that the evidence is relevant. In fact, both state and federal courts have strict rules for determining what evidence is admissible at a trial.

Judge Determines What is Relevant Evidence

As we have stated, only evidence that is relevant will be admissible at a trial. It is the trial judge that determines what evidence is, in fact, relevant. Relevant evidence is defined by the California Code of Evidence at Section 210 as evidence, including evidence relevant to the credibility of a witness or hearsay declarant, having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action. The Federal Rules of Evidence define relevance more globally at Rule 401: Evidence as having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

Relevance is not the sole criterion for evidence to be admissible. Evidence must also be necessary to assist the jury in understanding the issues, and must not be confusing, misleading or cumulative. Further, the proffered evidence must also be evaluated to determine whether or not it is hearsay. Hearsay in its most basic form is defined as an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted in that statement. If a hearsay objection is raised to the offer of a certain piece of evidence, the court must decide whether or not that evidence is admissible hearsay, specifically, does it fall within any of the enumerated exceptions to the hearsay rules. Generally, the analysis centers on the reliability and trustworthiness of the statement.

Subpoenas Issued by Judge

Consequently, when a judge decides whether to issue subpoenas in line with the accuseds right to compulsory process, the judge must first decide whether or not that evidence is relevant and admissible. Thus, as we have said, although the accused is constitutionally guaranteed the right to compulsory process, that right is limited, and the court will use a due process analysis to determine whether or not process will issue. Compulsory process may take the form of a general subpoena for appearance at a trial for purposes of giving testimony. It also may take the form of a subpoena duces tecum, which is a subpoena to bring documents to the court. The right to subpoena witnesses or documents also includes the right to obtain a bench warrant, or a continuance, if the witness fails to appear, or a contempt order or other sanctions if the subpoena is not otherwise followed.

Nevertheless, before any subpoena is issued, the court will generally require that the accused defendant show a need for a subpoena. That need is generally presented in a declaration submitted by counsel, which discusses why the testimony or other evidence is favorable and material to the defense, and cannot be obtained by any other reasonable means. The court will then make its decision. Although, as we have stated, the right to compulsory process is not absolute, the court cannot impair the right by taking action that would make the witness unavailable, or by excusing subpoenaed witnesses from testifying, or by arbitrarily limiting the number of subpoenas that will be issued.

Failure to Comply with Subpoena

Since a subpoena is a court order, failure to comply may result in the application for and issuance of sanctions. For example, if a witness fails to obey a subpoena, the defendant is entitled to the issuance of a writ of attachment, which is an order that directs any law enforcement officer to bring the witness before the judge. This writ is more commonly referred to as a bench warrant. However, while a court can issue a bench warrant on behalf of a defendant, the prosecutor is not obligated to actually bring the witness to court. The prosecutors sole duty is to provide the defendant with every opportunity to locate and serve the witness with the subpoena. The defendant’s right to compulsory process is satisfied when the prosecutor turns over the witness contact information to the defense even when a witness cannot be located.

Justice System Designed to Ensure Rights of Accused

<p>A factually false statement regarding an occurrence of domestic violence that is presented to the police creates a multitude of injustices that unnecessarily wastes needed resources that the police and eventually, the judicial system require to properly function.</p>

<h2>False Domestic Violence Claims</h2>

<p>Making false claims about domestic violence is no laughing matter. Daily, we are privy to reports of spouses battering and abusing the weaker spouse. The scenario is made worse if the particular fact pattern included a falsely battered spouse convincing her unassuming child to inform his or her school-teacher that her spouse beat them. This teacher then in turn, assumes the statements of the child to be truthful and turns to the police for further action.</p>

<p>The teacher and administration have a statutory obligation to report the incident for the sole purpose of protecting the child from any possible dangers. The educational systems single concern is that of child and on even the remote possibility that the statements made by the child are in fact true, the school must report the incident without verifying its validity.</p>

<p>Once put on notice of the alleged incident, the police must use their resources to investigate the claim. The investigation takes up valuable time and manpower. Each officer whose time is wasted investigating fabricated claims could be potentially used for a crime that is actually valid. In addition, this problem may lead to social defects on a greater scale. A foreseen possibility is the need to eventually increase taxes in order to pay for these wasteful resources. Also important to note are the already overcrowded prisons today. Putting a falsely accused man in prison would only hinder the problem that the courts/prison systems have rather than help it.</p>

<h2>Repercussions of False Domestic Abuse Allegations</h2>

<p>The spouse accused of the jacitation most likely will have their reputation damaged by such allegations with whomever they encounter. Even upon the charges being eventually dropped, still, it is hard to say with certainty that all those with whom this individual comes in contact with will not think in the back of their minds that this person was once charged with a serious crime. Domestic violence is a crime that could potentially happen to anyone who lives with another; a crime that many can relate to whether or not they have been a victim. Society likely views the falsely accused with a cautious eye. This consequence hinders the accused in regaining a normal sense of livelihood, once accustomed to. More so, the accuseds name will be unjustly tarnished. The spouse that made the false accusation will also have her reputation tarnished; the accuser will be known to others as a liar</p>

<p>The child also suffers as a result of the parent that asked the child to make the false accusations. The child may suffer psychological trauma that requires therapy. Potentially, the child may be removed from the school and home that they are in, as well as possibly be ridiculed amongst friends.</p>

<h2>Police Become Skeptical of Future Domestic Violence Claims</h2>

<p>The increasingly false claims that are investigated create a sense of jadedness in the minds of police officers that could potentially hurt actual future victims. Barring any physical injury apparent to a potential victim of domestic violence, police may not take the claimant seriously until evidence suggests otherwise. Although the claim may be proven, with the absence of actual physical injury, the alleged injured spouse will have to wait longer to have their case heard since the police will need to spend even more time and resources investigating the validity of the false report. A false report would seem to occupy a significantly more amount of time and manpower than an obviously truthful one. Ultimately, the less truthful the statement is, the more time that investigation is needed to clear up the falsely accused.</p>

<h2>Additional Problems Associated with False Claims</h2>

<p>There are additional problems that arise when falsely accused and forced to make bail. If the allegor is successful in convincing the judge during preliminary hearings that the abuse did in fact occur, bail is set very high. This occurs since the court does not want to make it easy for the alleged to return to the home that he or she might still share with the accuser. If the alleged were to reach his victim, injury or death may ensue. Also, if the accused has reason to think that there is no chance to convince a jury otherwise that the story was false, than there is not much stopping the accused from actually injuring the accuser, elicited from rage created by the unjustly false allegation.</p>

<p>The spouse that made the original allegation needs to be considered with regards to coping skills. It cannot be said with any certainty that once the accuser terminates the prior relationship that they will not enter another relationship in the future, where they once again, make false claims. This parent may have an economic dependency on the other spouse or be victim to an array of differing socioeconomic elements, thus returning to the same cycle that they had previously departed.</p>

The American criminal justice system is specifically designed to ensure that the rights of every citizen who is accused or charged with a crime are maintained throughout the proceedings. The Constitution provides each and every citizen is guaranteed due process, and a fair trial. The commitment of a free society is to support and protect these fundamental rights. Therefore, the right to compulsory process is vital to the accuseds right to a fair trial, which embodies the right to present a defense.

If you or someone you know is the subject of a criminal investigation or prosecution, it is important that an experienced criminal defense attorney be consulted so that proper counsel is obtained and your constitutional rights can be safeguarded.

Now Playing: Imhoff & Associates - Criminal Defense Attorneys

Talk to Us Now

Have a Question? We can help to answer it
right now!

Talk by Phone

Our criminal attorneys have been featured on: