 After determining that the Sixth Amendment 's " right to compulsory process is applicable in this state proceeding " ( i.e. that the Compulsory Process Clause applied to the states ) , the question became whether the specific instance of Washington 's trial was an unconstitutional deprivation of that right . Despite the common law restriction against co @-@ defendants testifying for each other , Warren noted that federal courts had refused to be " bound by ' the dead hand of the common @-@ law ' " since 1918 . Along with the precedent of prior federal court decisions , the fact that there were a great deal of exceptions to this rule demonstrated the " absurdity of the rule " itself . Specifically , under the Texas statute — which allowed a defendant acquitted at a separate trial to testify for the other defendant at the other 's trial — the " law leaves [ the co @-@ defendant ] free to testify when he has a great incentive to perjury , [ but ] bars his testimony in situations where he has a lesser motive to lie " . 
