Washington v. Texas
Jackie Washington tried to call his co-defendant as a witness, but was blocked by Texas courts. The Supreme Court reasoned that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment made the right to be able to compel defense witnesses to testify necessary for a defendant’s rights to fair proceedings. The impact of Washington was narrowed by a later case, Taylor v. Illinois, in which the Court said that the need to move through cases could be balanced against the defendant’s right to present witnesses.
About Washington v. Texas in brief
Jackie Washington tried to call his co-defendant as a witness, but was blocked by Texas courts. The Supreme Court reasoned that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment made the right to be able to compel defense witnesses to testify necessary for a defendant’s rights to fair proceedings, which applies to the states. The impact of Washington was narrowed by a later case, Taylor v. Illinois, in which the Court said that the need to move through cases quickly could be balanced against the defendant’s right to present witnesses. The Compulsory Process Clause was ratified as part of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution in the Bill of Rights in 1791. It accords a criminal defendant the right … to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor. The Clause was included among other rights as a foundation for how federal criminal justice would operate, but it was not originally interpreted to permit co-Defendants to testify for each other. States relied on a fear that two defendants would both “swear the other ” of the charge to prevent either defendant from being convicted. Federal courts accepted these common law rules and expressly applied them in United States v. Reid. In Reid, the Court held that the common law pertaining to criminal procedure in force at the time of the Constitution’s ratification would be applied in federal courts. In Hovey v. Elliot, the Supreme Court specifically applied the due Process Clause to some trial guarantees, holding that due process guarantees, that ‘inherent right of defense’ of the defense’ was not a right to testify.
In Hurtado v. California, the Court rejected an argument that the due process Clause applied to the state governments in a case concerning theright to a grand jury hearing. In Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Chicago, the court held in 1897 that the Just Compensation Clause relating to eminent domain takings was an essential element of due process of law ordained by the Fifth Amendment. In the same year as the railroad takings case, the High Court evaluated what principles of liberty and justice implicated the trial rights implicated in the case. The Court found that just compensation constituted just compensation, meaning that application of that amendment was just within the meaning of the Due process Clause, and that all other application of the Clause would become worthless. The High Court ruled that the Clause did protect against state encroachment on “fundamental principles ofliberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions”. The case was decided on different grounds in 1918, and it stated the general practice for co- defendants as witnesses that existed before the Fourteen Amendment. While Reid was overruled on different Grounds in 1918,. It stated thegeneral practice forCo-defendants as witness that existed prior to the Fourthteenth Amendment. The case is known as “Washington v. Washington” and was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on November 14, 1998. The decision was appealed by Jackie Washington to the Texas Court of Appeals.