This Article examines the validity of the conventional wisdom. It draws support for its analysis from the constitutional principles of compulsory process, and, in their absence, from related doctrine in the areas of a defendant's right to confront witnesses against him and his right to a fair trial. Part I of the article defines the constitutional standard that governs the simple case of a nonindigent defendant who makes a timely application to produce a witness from within the territory of the jurisdiction. Parts II through IV, in turn, examine that standard in the light of complicating factors such as the defendant's need for more time to secure a witness' presence, the indigency of the defendant, the defendant's failure to make an advance showing of need for the witness, the location of the witness beyond the territorial boundaries of the jurisdiction, and the availability of the defendant's evidence in a form other than live testimony.
Compulsory Process II,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol74/iss2/2