Connection lost
Server error
BARBER v. PAGE Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A state used a witness’s preliminary hearing testimony at trial because the witness was in a federal prison in another state. The Supreme Court held this violated the defendant’s confrontation right because the state failed to make a good-faith effort to bring the witness to trial.
Legal Significance: This case established that a witness is not “unavailable” for Confrontation Clause purposes unless the prosecution has made a good-faith effort to secure their presence at trial, even if the witness is incarcerated out-of-state.
BARBER v. PAGE Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Petitioner Barber and a co-defendant, Woods, were charged with armed robbery in Oklahoma. At the preliminary hearing, Woods waived his privilege against self-incrimination and gave testimony that incriminated Barber. Barber’s counsel did not cross-examine Woods. By the time of Barber’s trial seven months later, Woods was incarcerated in a federal penitentiary in Texas, approximately 225 miles from the trial court. The State of Oklahoma made no effort to secure Woods’s presence at trial. Instead, arguing that Woods was unavailable because he was outside the jurisdiction, the prosecution sought to introduce the transcript of Woods’s preliminary hearing testimony. Barber objected, asserting his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witness against him. The trial court overruled the objection, admitted the transcript, and the jury convicted Barber. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction, and federal habeas relief was denied by the lower courts, leading to this appeal.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the introduction of a witness’s preliminary hearing testimony at a criminal trial violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation when the witness is incarcerated in an out-of-state federal prison and the prosecution has made no good-faith effort to secure their presence?
Yes. The Court held that the state’s use of the preliminary hearing Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fu
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the introduction of a witness’s preliminary hearing testimony at a criminal trial violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation when the witness is incarcerated in an out-of-state federal prison and the prosecution has made no good-faith effort to secure their presence?
Conclusion
This decision significantly strengthened the Confrontation Clause by imposing an affirmative duty Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris
Legal Rule
A witness is not "unavailable" for the purposes of the hearsay exception Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court began by reaffirming the fundamental nature of the Sixth Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo co
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A witness is not “unavailable” for Confrontation Clause purposes unless the