Reynolds v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1879 · Evidence

98 U.S. 145 (1879)

Updated August 22, 2026

Evidenceformer testimonyunavailable witnesswrongful procurementconfrontationsecondary evidencesame partiessame issues

Facts

At Reynolds's trial, the government introduced evidence of what Amelia Jane Schofield had sworn at a former trial of Reynolds for the same offense under another indictment. Schofield, the alleged second wife, had no home except with Reynolds, and when an officer attempted to find and serve her, Reynolds refused to say where she was and stated she would not get into trouble until a subpoena was served on her. After a corrected subpoena issued, officers still could not find her, and the trial court concluded that Reynolds had been instrumental in concealing or keeping her away. Reynolds had been present at the earlier trial and had full opportunity to cross-examine her there.

Issue

When a witness who testified at a former trial is absent from the current trial, may the prosecution prove that prior testimony through another witness where the defendant is found to have wrongfully procured the witness's absence? Relatedly, what level of appellate deference applies to the trial court's finding that the defendant caused the witness's absence?

Rule

The right of confrontation does not bar admission of a witness's former testimony when the witness is absent by the defendant's own wrongful procurement. If a witness has been wrongfully kept away by the adverse party, testimony given at a former trial between the same parties on the same issues may be admitted, especially where the accused was present and had full opportunity to cross-examine. The trial court's preliminary finding of wrongful procurement is a factual determination that should not be disturbed on review unless the error is manifest.

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 criminal trial in Phoenix, the prosecution seeks to prove what Lena Ortiz said at an earlier trial on the same burglary charge after a mistrial. The judge finds that the defendant, Marcus Vale, paid for Ortiz's bus ticket to Nevada after learning she had been subpoenaed, and Marcus had been present at the first trial and cross-examined her fully.

Should the prior testimony be admitted over Marcus's confrontation objection?

Explanation. The majority rule is that the accused cannot complain of the absence of a witness whom he wrongfully kept away. When the testimony was given at a former trial of the same person on the same issues and the accused was present with full opportunity for cross-examination, the prior testimony may be admitted.