Motes v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1900 · Evidence

EvidenceConfrontation ClausePrior testimonyFederal criminal procedureSixth Amendmentconfronted with the witnessesprior testimonyexamining trial

Facts

The defendants were prosecuted for conspiring to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate W. A. Thompson because he had informed federal officials of violations of the internal revenue laws, and for murdering him while carrying out that conspiracy. At trial, the government was unable to produce William Robert Taylor, whose prior written statement from a preliminary examination strongly implicated the defendants, and instead offered that statement into evidence. The record showed Taylor had been confined in jail without bail, but after trial began a government officer removed him from jail, placed him in the custody of another government witness, allowed him to stay at a hotel with his family, and Taylor then disappeared. There was no evidence that any defendant caused or procured Taylor's absence.

Issue

Whether the Sixth Amendment permitted the government to read to the jury Taylor's statement from the preliminary examination when Taylor was absent from trial, where his absence was not shown to have been caused by the accused and instead appeared to result from the government's own negligence. A secondary issue was whether the life sentences were authorized under §§ 5508 and 5509 in light of Alabama law and the federal Act of January 15, 1897.

Rule

In a federal criminal prosecution, the accused has the constitutional right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. Prior testimony or a deposition of an absent witness may be used only within recognized exceptions, such as where the witness is dead, insane, sick and unable to testify, or has been kept away by the suggestion, connivance, or procurement of the accused; it is not admissible when the witness's absence is due to the negligence of the prosecution. Also, where § 5509 incorporates state punishment for murder committed in carrying out a federal conspiracy, that incorporation operates subject to later federal legislation abolishing the death penalty for the offense, leaving life imprisonment as the only authorized punishment here.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal criminal trial in Denver, the prosecution seeks to read a witness's sworn testimony from a preliminary hearing. The witness had been jailed pending trial, but after trial began a federal investigator let him spend two nights at a private apartment with relatives under the watch of another government witness, and the witness disappeared before being called. There is no evidence that any defendant helped him leave.

Should the trial court admit the preliminary-hearing testimony?

Explanation. The majority treated confrontation as the constitutional norm in federal criminal cases. It recognized exceptions for situations such as death, insanity, sickness, or where the witness was kept away by the accused's suggestion, connivance, or procurement. But it held prior examining-trial testimony inadmissible where the witness's absence was attributable to government negligence. An earlier opportunity to cross-examine does not cure that defect when the prosecution itself negligently allowed the witness to disappear. (Derived from Motes v. United States (1900).)