skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 32937 Find in a Library
Title: COMPULSORY PROCESS II
Journal: MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW  Volume:74  Issue:2  Dated:(DECEMBER 1975)  Pages:192-306
Author(s): P WESTEN
Corporate Author: Michigan Law Review Assoc
United States of America
Date Published: 1975
Page Count: 115
Sponsoring Agency: Michigan Law Review Assoc
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: THIS ARTICLE ADDRESSES A SERIES OF QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO PRODUCE, AND THUS IMPLICITLY TO PRESENT, ANY WITNESS CAPABLE OF GIVING TESTIMONY IN HIS FAVOR.
Abstract: IT RE-EXAMINES THE BASES FOR DOCTRINAIRE ASSERTIONS THAT THE COMPULSORY PROCESS CLAUSE, HAVING NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT STANDARDS OF COMPETENCE FOR DEFENSE WITNESSES, HAS NO BEARING ON THE POWER OF THE STATE TO IMPOSE NUMERICAL LIMITS ON THE NUMBER OF DEFENSE SUBPOENAS, TO DENY SUBPOENAS FOR WITNESSES WHOSE TESTIMONY IS DEEMED CUMULATIVE, TO DENY A DEFENDANT CONTINUANCES PENDING THE APPEARANCE OF HIS WITNESSES, AND TO REQUIRE A DEFENDANT TO ACCEPT SUBSTITUTE EVIDENCE IN THE PLACE OF LIVE TESTIMONY, IT FURTHER ANALYZES ASSERTIONS THAT THE CLAUSE, GUARANTEEING THE DEFENDANT NOTHING MORE THAN EQUALITY WITH THE PROSECUTION REGARDING THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS, HAS NO ADDITIONAL BEARING ON THE POWER OF THE STATE TO WITHHOLD SUBPOENAS FROM DEFENDANTS WHO ARE UNABLE TO PAY FOR THEM, TO REFUSE TO ENFORCE SUBPOENAS BY ATTACHMENT OR ARREST, AND TO REFUSE TO PRODUCE OUT-OFSTATE WITNESSES FROM BEYOND ITS TERRITORIAL BOUNDARIES. PART I OF THE ARTICLE DEFINES THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS THAT GOVERNS THE SIMPLE CASE OF A NONINDIGENT DEFENDANT WHO MAKES A TIMELY APPLICATION TO PRODUCE A WITNESS FROM WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THE JURISDICTION. PARTS II THROUGH IV, IN TURN, EXAMINE THAT STANDARD IN THE LIGHT OF COMPLICATING FACTORS SUCH AS THE DEFENDANT'S NEED FOR MORE TIME TO SECURE A WITNESS' PRESENCE, THE INDIGENCY OF THE DEFENDANT, THE DEFENDANT'S FAILURE TO MAKE AN ADVANCE SHOWING OF NEED FOR THE WITNESS, THE LOCATION OF THE WITNESS BEYOND THE TERRITORIAL BOUNDARIES OF THE JURISDICTION, AND THE AVAILABILITY OF THE DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE IN A FORM OTHER THAN LIVE TESTIMONY. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT)
Index Term(s): Defense; Judicial decisions; Right to fair trial; Rights of the accused; Testimony; Witnesses
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=32937

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.