Anthony Teong-Chan Gaw as Transferee of Radcliffe Investment LTD. - Page 165

                                                 - 63 -                                                    
            not disclosed by the record in that case, including the "physical                              
            amenability to subpoena" of those witnesses.  Id. at 625 & n.23.                               
            Thus, Wynn merely indicates that physical amenability to subpoena                              
            is simply one of a number of different factors to be considered                                
            in determining whether an uncalled witness is within a party's                                 
            power to produce for purposes of the adverse inference rule.  It                               
            does not stand for the proposition that such a witness is always                               
            beyond the power of a party to produce for purposes of that rule                               
            when that witness is not subject to subpoena.                                                  
                  Petitioner has not cited, and our research has not dis-                                  
            closed, any case decided by the Court of Appeals for the District                              
            of Columbia Circuit involving the adverse inference rule where                                 
            that court has considered a situation in which an uncalled                                     
            witness was beyond the subpoena power of the court.41  However,                                

            41  We note that in Harry v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 215 F. Supp.                                
            324, 325-327 (D.D.C. 1963), the U.S. District Court for the                                    
            District of Columbia, the court in accordance with whose rules of                              
            evidence we conduct our trials, Rule 143(a), found that a jury                                 
            was permitted to draw a negative inference from a defendant's                                  
            failure to call a former employee who was apparently living in                                 
            Florida at the time of trial.  That court found that the jury                                  
            could infer that that witness was peculiarly available to the                                  
            defendant because of the witness' past employment relationship                                 
            with the defendant, the defendant's apparent knowledge of where                                
            the witness could be reached, and the lack of a satisfactory                                   
            explanation for his absence.  Id.  We note that, at the time the                               
            Harry case was decided, Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(e) provided that a                                  
            subpoena for attendance at trial generally could be served within                              
            the district where trial was held or within 100 miles of that                                  
            place.  Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(e), 28 U.S.C. app. at 5167 (1958).                                  
            Accordingly, it seems that the missing witness in Harry v.                                     
            Safeway Stores, Inc., supra, was beyond the subpoena power of the                              
                                                                            (continued...)                 




Page:  Previous  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011