Material witness

Last updated

In American criminal law, a material witness is a person with information alleged to be material concerning a criminal proceeding. The authority to detain material witnesses dates to the First Judiciary Act of 1789, but the Bail Reform Act of 1984 most recently amended the text of the statute, and it is now codified at 18 U.S.C.   § 3144. The most recent version allows material witnesses to be held to ensure the giving of their testimony in criminal proceedings or to a grand jury.

Contents

Since September 11, 2001, the U.S. has used the material witness statute to detain suspects without charge for indefinite periods of time, often under the rubric of securing grand-jury testimony. This use of the statute is controversial and is currently under judicial review. In Ashcroft v. al-Kidd (2011), the detainee was never charged or called as a witness, and sued John Ashcroft, then the U.S. attorney general. The Supreme Court overturned a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and held that Ashcroft qualified for immunity because of his official position.

Text of the statute

18 U.S.C.   § 3144, commonly referred to as the "material witness statute," provides as follows:

If it appears from an affidavit filed by a party that the testimony of a person is material in a criminal proceeding, and if it is shown that it may become impracticable to secure the presence of the person by subpoena, a judicial officer may order the arrest of the person and treat the person in accordance with the provisions of section 3142 of this title. No material witness may be detained because of inability to comply with any condition of release if the testimony of such witness can adequately be secured by deposition, and if further detention is not necessary to prevent a failure of justice. Release of a material witness may be delayed for a reasonable period of time until the deposition of the witness can be taken pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Introduction

A material witness is an individual who contains information "material" to a criminal proceeding. With the authority of 18 U.S.C.   § 3144, the United States government can seek a warrant from a judicial officer in order to arrest a material witness. To do so, a United States official must file an affidavit with the judicial officer alleging that (1) the individual has material information to the criminal proceeding and (2) it would be "impracticable to secure the presence of the person by subpoena."

Although there has been much legal debate about the scope of the material witness statute, it has been clear since the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Bacon v. United States , 449 F.2d 933 (9th Cir. 1971), that the phrase "a criminal proceeding" from the material witness statute includes both trials (uncontroversially) and grand jury investigations. Thus, the ability to arrest material witnesses under the statute extends to the ability to arrest those with information material to a grand jury investigation (assuming the showing of impracticability is also made). The Supreme Court has not had a chance to rule on this statutory issue.[ citation needed ]

Detentions of material witnesses after September 11

After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States government announced a campaign of aggressive detention, by whatever means possible, of those potentially involved in attacks on the United States. [1] The means included using the material witness statute to detain even suspects (as opposed to witnesses). Many of those detained as material witnesses were detained as witnesses to grand jury proceedings, [2] which only investigate and are not criminal trials.[ citation needed ]

This caused controversy for several reasons. Primarily, critics believed that the government's use of the material witness statute to detain suspects was an evasion of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which provides some protections to criminal suspects that were apparently ignored in the arrests of the material witness detainees post-September 11. Secondarily, legal critics took issue with the application of the material witness statute to grand jury proceedings.

Statistics on federal material witness warrant hearings showed a steady decline from 2000 to 2002, from 3603 material witness hearings in FY2000, to 3344 in FY2001 and 2961 in FY2002. During and after that period, the overwhelming majority of material witness warrant hearings took place in judicial districts bordering Mexico and involved illegal alien traffic. [3]

Attempting to amend the material witness statute

In 2005, with the intent of alleviating concerns over such use of the material witness statute, Democratic Party Senator Patrick Leahy proposed A Bill to Amend the Material Witness Statute to Strengthen Procedural Safeguards, and for Other Purposes, S. 1739 § 1. The legislation failed to move forwards, however, after being sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee. [4] A 2006 ruling[ where? ] found that material witness law could only be used when an individual is genuinely sought as a witness and there was a flight risk; it is not to be used as a preventive action.[ citation needed ]

Ashcroft v. al-Kidd

In 2009 the Ninth Circuit of Appeals in San Francisco, California found in Ashcroft v. al-Kidd that former Attorney General John Ashcroft could be sued personally for wrongful detention by Abdullah al-Kidd, an American citizen who was arrested in 2003 and held for 16 days in maximum security prisons to be used as a material witness in the trial of Sami Omar Al-Hussayen. Al-Kidd was never charged or called as a witness. (Al-Hussayen was acquitted in 2004 of all charges of supporting terrorism.) [5] [6]

The circuit court's decision was unanimously reversed in Ashcroft v. al-Kidd (2011) by the United States Supreme Court on May 31, 2011, affirming the immunity of government officials operating in their official positions. [7]

See also

Related Research Articles

Perjury is the intentional act of swearing a false oath or falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding.

An arrest warrant or bench warrant is a warrant issued by a judge or magistrate on behalf of the state which authorizes the arrest and detention of an individual or the search and seizure of an individual's property.

In United States jurisdictions, obstruction of justice refers to a number of offenses that involve unduly influencing, impeding, or otherwise interfering with the justice system, especially the legal and procedural tasks of prosecutors, investigators, or other government officials. Common law jurisdictions other than the United States tend to use the wider offense of perverting the course of justice.

The right to silence is a legal principle which guarantees any individual the right to refuse to answer questions from law enforcement officers or court officials. It is a legal right recognized, explicitly or by convention, in many of the world's legal systems.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">José Padilla (criminal)</span> American terrorist incarcerated in a US federal prison

José Padilla, also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir or Muhajir Abdullah, is a United States citizen who was convicted in a federal court of aiding terrorists.

In criminal law, self-incrimination is the act of making a statement that exposes oneself to an accusation of criminal liability or prosecution. Self-incrimination can occur either directly or indirectly: directly, by means of interrogation where information of a self-incriminatory nature is disclosed; or indirectly, when information of a self-incriminatory nature is disclosed voluntarily without pressure from another person.

Witness tampering is the act of attempting to improperly influence, alter or prevent the testimony of witnesses within criminal or civil proceedings.

A subpoena ad testificandum is a court summons to appear and give oral testimony for use at a hearing or trial. The use of a writ for purposes of compelling testimony originated in the ecclesiastical courts of Church during the High Middle Ages, especially in England. The use of the subpoena writ was gradually adopted over time by civil and criminal courts in England and the European continent.


"Stop and identify" statutes are laws in several U.S. states that authorize police to lawfully order people whom they reasonably suspect of committing a crime to state their name. If there is not reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a crime, is committing a crime, or is about to commit a crime, the person is not required to identify himself or herself, even in these states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Detention (imprisonment)</span> Process whereby a state or private citizen lawfully holds a person, removing their freedom

Detention is the process whereby a state or private citizen lawfully holds a person by removing their freedom or liberty at that time. This can be due to (pending) criminal charges preferred against the individual pursuant to a prosecution or to protect a person or property. Being detained does not always result in being taken to a particular area, either for interrogation or as punishment for a crime. An individual may be detained due a psychiatric disorder, potentially to treat this disorder involuntarily. They may also be detained for to prevent the spread of infectious diseases such as tuberculosis.

Witness immunity from prosecution occurs when a prosecutor grants immunity to a witness in exchange for testimony or production of other evidence.

In the United States, the Jencks Act requires the prosecutor to produce a verbatim statement or report made by a government witness or prospective government witness, but only after the witness has testified.

Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of vague laws that allow police to demand that "loiterers" and "wanderers" provide "credible and reliable" identification.

An inquest is a judicial inquiry in common law jurisdictions, particularly one held to determine the cause of a person's death. Conducted by a judge, jury, or government official, an inquest may or may not require an autopsy carried out by a coroner or medical examiner. Generally, inquests are conducted only when deaths are sudden or unexplained. An inquest may be called at the behest of a coroner, judge, prosecutor, or, in some jurisdictions, upon a formal request from the public. A coroner's jury may be convened to assist in this type of proceeding. Inquest can also mean such a jury and the result of such an investigation. In general usage, inquest is also used to mean any investigation or inquiry.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment enumerating due process rights

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution creates several constitutional rights, limiting governmental powers focusing on criminal procedures. It was ratified, along with nine other articles, in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pre-trial detention</span> Detention after arrest and charge until a trial

Pre-trial detention, also known as jail, preventive detention, provisional detention, or remand, is the process of detaining a person until their trial after they have been arrested and charged with an offence. A person who is on remand is held in a prison or detention centre or held under house arrest. Varying terminology is used, but "remand" is generally used in common law jurisdictions and "preventive detention" elsewhere. However, in the United States, "remand" is rare except in official documents and "jail" is instead the main terminology. Detention before charge is commonly referred to as custody and continued detention after conviction is referred to as imprisonment.

Sami Omar Al-Hussayen, also known as Sami Al-Hussayen, is a teacher at a technical college in Riyadh. As a Ph.D. graduate student in computer science at the University of Idaho in the United States, he was arrested and charged in 2003 by the United States with running websites as a webmaster that were linked to organizations that support terrorism. Al-Hussayen is one of the few people at the time to have been charged under a provision that has been described as "overly broad and vague." He was also charged with immigration violations.

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled that the plenary power doctrine does not authorize the indefinite detention of immigrants under order of deportation whom no other country will accept. To justify detention of immigrants for a period longer than six months, the government was required to show removal in the foreseeable future or special circumstances.

Following the common law system introduced into Hong Kong when it became a Crown colony, Hong Kong's criminal procedural law and the underlying principles are very similar to the one in the UK. Like other common law jurisdictions, Hong Kong follows the principle of presumption of innocence. This principle penetrates the whole system of Hong Kong's criminal procedure and criminal law. Viscount Sankey once described this principle as a 'golden thread'. Therefore, knowing this principle is vital for understanding the criminal procedures practised in Hong Kong.

Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that U.S. Attorney General John D. Ashcroft could not be personally sued for his involvement in the detention of a U.S. citizen in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States.

References

  1. ↑ "Attorney General Ashcroft Outlines Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force", U.S. Department of Justice , October 31, 2001
  2. ↑ "Witness to Abuse: Human Rights Abuses Under the Material Witness Law Since September 11", Human Rights Watch and American Civil Liberties Union, June 2005
  3. ↑ Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Judicial Business of the United States Courts, Table M-3 (2005), id. (2004), id. (2003), id. (2002), id. (2001), id. (2000).
  4. ↑ "A bill to amend the material witness statute to strengthen procedural safeguards, and for other purposes. (2005; 109th Congress S. 1739) - GovTrack.us".
  5. ↑ "John Ashcroft Can Be Sued for Wrongful Detention",
  6. ↑ "Appeals court rules against Ashcroft in 9/11 case - Yahoo! News". news.yahoo.com. Archived from the original on 2009-09-09.
  7. ↑ "Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd".
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.