Title and Citation
Washington W. Texas Court Case No. 649 citation 388 USA 14 was argued on March 15-16, 1967. The judge’s decision was announced on June 12, 1967.
Advocates
The lawyers for the trial were Charles W. Tessmer and Howard M. Fender. Tessmer served as an advocate for the petitioner and Fender represented the respondents.
Issue
The original problem was a murder charge, or rather a fatal shooting. In other words, the applicant and his accomplice took part in the armed attack. The accomplice appeared before the court earlier than the applicant; therefore, he had already been convicted at the time of the case under review. The defendant tried to achieve the possibility of testifying as an accomplice to remove his guilt. He argued that a previously imprisoned companion committed the murder and that the applicant was not guilty. However, the judges, relying on the law, rejected this requirement. Under the Sixth Amendment, which applies to the Fourteenth Amendment states, the accused was entitled to get approval for the procedure for requesting witnesses to testify in his favor. Still, the court authorities denied him a request to listen and consider the testimony of a witness or an accomplice, because of which the court’s verdict turned in the opposite direction.
The decision of the Court
The court sentenced the applicant to be guilty and punished him with fifty years’ imprisonment. For a clearer understanding of the judges’ decisions, the case’s background will be considered below. The applicant, an eighteen-year-old boy, was dating a girl named Jean Carter, but at some point, her mother became opposed to the relationship; consequently, they had to leave. Then Jean began to date another guy who the applicant and his accomplice killed. According to one version of the crime, the guys drove to Dallas on the night of August 29, 1964, in search of a pistol. They found a man named Charles Fuller who had a shotgun. The armed company headed to the house of the defendant’s ex-girlfriend, which they had thrown over with bricks. Hearing bricks, the girl, her mother, and the deceased boyfriend ran out to see what was happening there. The rest of the guys left, but Washington and Fuller stood in front of the house. As a result, Jean Carter’s new boyfriend was fatally wounded with a shotgun. The culprit is one of the guys who stayed near the house with a pistol.
Facts and Summary of the case
As mentioned earlier, in this case, there could only be one shooter since the guys had one shotgun. In addition, Fuller testified that he was intoxicated and wanted to shoot someone. Washington tried to stop and urged him to return to the car. When the shot rang out, Jackie thought his partner had hit one of the women. Fuller’s testimony was critical to this case since he was the only witness who could confirm the events. However, state law at the time did not provide for the testimony of persons accused or convicted of the same crime. It is worth noting that there was no obstacle for the state to deny the request to hear the testimony of a witness or a second defendant. However, the judge did not provide such an opportunity and issued a charge and sentenced the defendant to fifty years of imprisonment with the possibility of appeal.
The Legal Question
The legal issue is the use of the law. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger overturned the lower decision. His view was to emphasize non-binding sixth amendment litigation. He was acting under the Fourteenth Amendment Act, and then he refused to provide a witness to Washington. Judge John M. Harlan concurred with the previous judge’s misconduct. However, he considered this issue not critical for the solution to the case. In other words, in his opinion, the court’s verdict would not have changed if the defendant had been allowed to resort to the testimony of an already convicted partner.
The ruling of the Court
Defendant Washington was sentenced to 50 years in prison by both original and appeal courts. The first judge denied the defendant the opportunity to secure his defense with the witness’s testimony, and the second fate decided that this testimony would not play a critical role in the final decision.
Votes
The judges in the Washington case had different views on the importance of certain factors and the possibility of allowing the accused to get evidence from an accomplice. However, as a result, the chief judge announced the verdict of eight judges, which meant an indictment. Judge Harlan agreed that the Texas court’s decision was overturned but emphasized the concurrent opinion. It means that the outcome of the referee’s decision tends towards one conclusion, but for different reasons.
Opinion
The majority was represented by Justice Earl Warren. His principal argument was the lack of experience and practice in such cases. He believed that the defendant’s right to be obliged to get testimony from witnesses is not so fundamental. The dissenting judge was John Marshall Harlan II. His position is a separate concurrent opinion in Washington.