Washington v. Texas

Supreme Court of the United States · 1967 · Evidence

388 U.S. 14 (1967)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceSixth AmendmentCompulsory ProcessFourteenth AmendmentWitness competencyincorporationdue processright to present a defense

Facts

Washington was tried for murder arising from a shotgun killing outside Jean Carter's home. He testified that Charles Fuller, who was intoxicated, took the gun from him, refused to leave, and fired the fatal shot after Washington ran back toward the car. Fuller had already been convicted of the same murder, and the record showed he would have testified that Washington tried to stop him and ran before Fuller fired. Texas statutes barred persons charged or convicted as coparticipants in the same crime from testifying for one another, so the trial court excluded Fuller's testimony even though it was undisputedly relevant, material, and vital to the defense.

Issue

Does the Sixth Amendment right to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in one's favor apply to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment? If so, does a state statute violate that right when it arbitrarily bars an alleged accomplice from testifying for the defense even though the witness is capable of testifying and his testimony is relevant and material?

Rule

The Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process is a fundamental element of due process and is binding on the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. That right includes not only the ability to compel a witness's attendance, but also the right to present the testimony of a witness who is physically and mentally capable of testifying and whose testimony is relevant and material to the defense; a State may not arbitrarily exclude whole categories of defense witnesses on the basis of a priori assumptions that they are unworthy of belief.

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 Michigan murder trial in Detroit, Leo Martin seeks to call Devon Price, who was separately charged in the same shooting and has firsthand knowledge of who fired the weapon. A Michigan statute provides that no person charged in connection with the same offense may testify for the defense in any criminal trial, even if separately tried. Devon is mentally alert, physically able to testify, and willing to appear.

If Leo argues that the statute violates the Federal Constitution, which is the strongest response?

Explanation. The majority held that the right to compulsory process is fundamental and applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. It protects not just the power to summon witnesses, but the right to present testimony from a witness who is physically and mentally capable of testifying and whose evidence is relevant and material to the defense. A state may not arbitrarily exclude an entire category of defense witnesses based on presumed untrustworthiness.