California Codes
Cal. Penal Code § 1334 (2026)
Attendance of Witnesses Outside the State
✓ leginfo export of Sept. 26, 2026 (applied Oct. 1, 2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
This chapter may be cited as the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from without the State in Criminal Cases.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1962–2024 · leading case: People v. Mataele, 513 P.3d 190 (Cal. 2022).
People v. Mataele, 513 P.3d 190 (Cal. 2022). “(Pen. Code, §§ 1334–1334.6.) 2 PEOPLE v. MATAELE Groban, J.”
People v. Cogswell, 227 P.3d 409 (Cal. 2010). “(Uniform Act; Pen. Code, § 1334 et seq.) Under the Uniform Act, as adopted in California, a party in a criminal case can ask a court in the state where an out-of-state material witness is located to subpoena the witness and also to have the witness taken into custody and brought…”
People v. Williams, 756 P.2d 221 (Cal. 1988). “Defendant applied for and obtained a certificate under the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from without the State in Criminal Cases (Pen. Code, § 1334 et seq.; Nev.Rev.Stats.”
Perillo v. Johnson, 79 F.3d 441 (5th Cir. 1996). “For a California court to enforce an out of state subpoena, the party seeking the subpoena must obtain a certificate from the state trial judge which states that (1) there is a criminal prosecution pending in the court; (2) a person within the state [California] is a material…”
People v. Sandoval, 87 Cal. App. 4th 1425 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001). “” We note the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from without the State in Criminal Cases (Pen. Code, § 1334 et seq.), referenced by the Supreme Court in Barber, requires the requesting state to pay travel expenses and witness fees.”
People v. Masters, 134 Cal. App. 3d 509 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982). “V Was prosecution compliance with the uniform act to secure attendance of witnesses from without the state (Pen. Code, § 1334 et seq.) excused because of an adequate showing of good faith efforts and due diligence (count 8)? Our conclusion, under the circumstances shown, is that…”
Vannier v. Superior Court, 650 P.2d 302 (Cal. 1982). “(Pen. Code, § 1334 et seq.) Florida has adopted similar legislation.”
In Re Francisco M., 86 Cal. App. 4th 1061 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001). “) 9 Also, under the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from without the State in Criminal Cases (Pen. Code, § 1334 et seq.) (Uniform Act), a court may take a witness into custody and deliver him to representatives of the requesting state.”
MCA v. State of California, 128 Cal. App. 3d 225 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982). “In focusing on the process of statutory construction by negative implication, the majority misses the factual essence of this case.”
John Adrian Dres v. Joseph Campoy, Warden, & Attorney Gen. of the State of California, 784 F.2d 996 (9th Cir. 1986). “2 Petitioner argues, however, that the lower courts erred in finding good faith because the prosecutor failed to use the Uniform Act to Secure Attendance of Witnesses from Without the State, Cal.Penal Code § 1334 (Uniform Act). The Uniform Act allows courts to compel the…”
People v. Blackwood, 138 Cal. App. 3d 939 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983). “(a)(5), italics added.) What the prosecution showed" was diligence, but not with respect to obtaining Cortelyou’s attendance by the court’s process.”
People v. Ward, 27 Cal. App. 3d 218 (Cal. Ct. App. 1972). “Ledbetter was returned from the State of Oregon, whether pursuant to the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses From Without the State in Criminal Cases (Pen. Code, § 1334 et seq.), or otherwise.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.