Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Constitutional Law · MBE-tested
Washington v. Texas
385 U.S. 812·Supreme Court of the United States·1966
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 168,
Misc.
Washington v. Texas.
Charles W. Tessmer and Emmett Colvin, Jr., for petitioner.
Waggoner Carr, Attorney General of Texas, Hawthorne Phillips, First Assistant Attorney General, and Charles B. Swanner and Howard M. Fender, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for writ of certiorari granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition which reads as follows: “1. Is Petitioner’s conviction and sentence void because he was denied his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States to have compulsory process in obtaining an available witness in his favor, namely a Co-Defendant, charged and previously convicted under a separate indictment for the same transaction and which Co-Defendant, according to his Affidavit, could have exonerated Petitioner if such testimony were believed by the jury?” Case transferred to appellate docket.