Brief Washington V Texas Final

Brief
1. Case Name Washington v. Texas
2. Case Citation 388 U.S. 14, 87 S.Ct. 1920, 18 L.Ed.2d 1019
3. Exact date decided June 12, 1967
4. Judge or Justice writing Majority Opinion Brennan Warren
5. Procedural facts Plaintiff was convicted in the Fourth District Court in Dallas County, Texas of murder. The plaintiff then proceeded by appealing to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the previous judgment. The US Supreme Court reversed the decision of the original trial court and the Texas Court of Appeals.
6. Facts of the case pertinent to the issue(s) in the case. On August 29th, 1964, Jackie Washington and Charles Fuller a group of their friends rode around the streets of Dallas alcohol fueled and with a shotgun in tow. Driven by their youthful angst for Washington’s ex girlfriend, Jean Carter’s, new beau, the boys drove to Jeans home where the family and her boyfriend were having dinner. Inciting conflict, the boys tossed bricks at the Carter home, causing Mrs. Carter and Jeans boyfriend to exit the home with the purpose of investigating the commotion outside. While the other boys returned to the car, Washington and Fuller remained in front of the Carter home with the shotgun in Fullers hands. Once outside, a gunshot rings off into the night striking Jeans boyfriend and ultimately killing him. In fleeing from the scene Washington and Fuller returned to the car, with Fuller carrying the murder weapon.
7. Issue(s) pertinent to chapters assigned for reading in the text Did the Texas statute that prohibited coconspirators from testifying at trial, deny the plaintiff their constitutional right to attain a witness per the sixth amendment (Compulsory).
8. Court’s decision Unanimously, the US Supreme Court reversed the conviction. Washington was denied his right to due process, when Fullers testimony was barred from his trial.
9. Court’s reasoning Citing that the compulsory process clause was a fundamental part of a Washington’s rights to present his defense, and which is essential to due process. Thus the Texas statute barring codefendants from testifying for each other is trumped by ones constitutional right to due process.
10. Disposition Reversed. Unanimously, the Supreme Court founded that a statute at the state level, violated Washington’s rights.
11. Dissent- The decision was unanimous.