Can You Confront Witnesses at a Preliminary Hearing?

No, you do not have a constitutional right to confront witnesses at a preliminary hearing. The case of State v. Sherry, 667 P.2d 367 (Kan. 1983) clarifies this legal issue.

Key Points from State v. Sherry:

1. Sixth Amendment Right of Confrontation:

   • The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to confront witnesses against you in a trial, but this right does not extend to preliminary hearings. The primary purpose of a preliminary hearing is to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the defendant committed it. It is not a forum for full cross-examination of witnesses or presenting a complete defense.

2. Admission of Laboratory Reports:

   • In State v. Sherry, the defendant objected to the introduction of police laboratory reports at his preliminary hearing, arguing that it violated his right to cross-examine the witnesses who prepared the reports. The trial court initially agreed with the defendant and dismissed the case. However, the Kansas Supreme Court overturned the decision, ruling that the right to confrontation does not apply to preliminary hearings. The court emphasized that hearsay evidence, such as laboratory reports, is admissible at this stage of the proceedings, and there is no constitutional requirement for the defendant to confront witnesses at this point.

3. Defendant’s Right to Subpoena Witnesses:

   • Although the defendant does not have a constitutional right to confront witnesses at the preliminary hearing, the court did note that the defendant could subpoena the witnesses, such as the forensic examiner, for the trial itself if they wished to challenge the laboratory results or the methodology used to test the substance. This ensures that the defendant can still exercise their right to cross-examine the witness during the trial phase of the proceedings.

4. Purpose of Preliminary Hearings:

   • Preliminary hearings are not designed to be a substitute for a trial. The standard for admissible evidence is more relaxed, and the goal is simply to determine if there is enough evidence for the case to proceed to trial. In this case, the Kansas Supreme Court emphasized that the rules of evidence that apply during a trial, such as excluding hearsay, do not necessarily apply during a preliminary hearing.

5. Probable Cause Standard:

   • The Kansas Supreme Court emphasized that the function of a preliminary hearing is to decide whether probable cause exists. Probable cause means that there is enough evidence to make a reasonable person believe that the defendant likely committed the crime. The court ruled that the probable cause standard can be met even if hearsay evidence, like the lab reports, is used at the preliminary hearing.

6. Ruling of the Kansas Supreme Court:

   • The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s ruling, finding that Sherry’s right to confrontation was not violated. The court reinstated the charges and sent the case back for further proceedings. The court made clear that a preliminary hearing does not give the defendant a constitutional right to confront witnesses, and this ruling is consistent with the procedural nature of preliminary hearings.

Conclusion:

In State v. Sherry, the Kansas Supreme Court held that the right to confront witnesses does not apply at preliminary hearings. At a preliminary hearing, the judge is tasked with determining whether there is probable cause to bind the defendant over for trial. Since the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause applies to trials, not preliminary hearings, defendants cannot argue that their right to confront witnesses was violated during this stage of the proceedings.