719 2 Opinion of the Court. 3 We start with the fact that the State made absolutely no effort to obtain the presence of Woods at trial other than to ascertain that he was in a federal prison outside Oklahoma. It must be acknowledged that various courts and commentators have heretofore assumed that the mere absence of a witness from the jurisdiction was sufficient ground for dispensing with confrontation on the theory that "it is impossible to compel his attendance, because the process of the trial Court is of no force without the jurisdiction, and the party desiring his testimony is therefore helpless." 5 Wigmore, Evidence § 1404 (3d ed. 1940). Whatever may have been the accuracy of that theory at one time, it is clear that at the present time increased cooperation between the States themselves and between the States and the Federal Government has largely deprived it of any continuing validity in the criminal law.* barred cross-examination by Parks involved situations where the client had testified about the existence and nature of the communications between himself and his attorney prior to the introduction of the attorney's testimony by way of rebuttal. E. g., Brown v. State, 9 Okla. Crim. 382, 132 P. 359 (1913); Boring v. Harber, 130 Okla. 251, 267 P. 252 (1927). As far as the record reveals, Woods did not testify about any communications between himself and Parks and hence the applicability of the foregoing cases is questionable. 2 See cases collected in 5 Wigmore, Evidence § 1404, n. 5 (3d ed., 1964 Supp.). 3 E. g., C. McCormick, Evidence § 234 (1954). For witnesses not in prison, the Uniform Act To Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Without a State in Criminal Proceedings provides a means by which prosecuting authorities from one State can obtain an order from a court in the State where the witness is found directing the witness to appear in court in the first State to testify. The State seeking his appearance must pay the witness a specified sum as a travel allowance and compensation for his time. As of 1967 the Uniform Act was in force in 45 States, the District of Columbia, the Canal Zone, Puerto Rico, and the Opinion of the Court. 390 U.S. For example, in the case of a prospective witness currently in federal custody, 28 U. S. C. § 2241 (c) (5) gives federal courts the power to issue writs of habeas corpus ad testificandum at the request of state prosecutorial authorities. See Gilmore v. United States, 129 F. 2d 199, 202 (C. A. 10th Cir. 1942); United States v. McGaha, 205 F. Supp. 949 (D. C. E. D. Tenn. 1962). In addition, it is the policy of the United States Bureau of Prisons to permit federal prisoners to testify in state court criminal proceedings pursuant to writs of habeas corpus ad testificandum issued out of state courts. Cf. Lawrence v. Willingham, 373 F. 2d 731 (C. A. 10th Cir. 1967) (habeas corpus ad prosequendum). In this case the state authorities made no effort to avail themselves of either of the above alternative means of seeking to secure Woods' presence at petitioner's trial. The Court of Appeals majority appears to have reasoned that because the State would have had to request an exercise of discretion on the part of federal authorities, it was under no obligation to make any such request. Yet as Judge Aldrich, sitting by designation, pointed out in dissent below, "the possibility of a refusal is not the equivalent of asking and receiving a rebuff." 381 F. 2d, at 481. In short, a witness is not "unavailable" for purposes of the foregoing exception to the confrontation Virgin Islands. See 9 Uniform Laws Ann. 50 (1967 Supp.). For witnesses in prison, quite probably many state courts would utilize the common-law writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum at the request of prosecutorial authorities of a sister State upon a showing that adequate safeguards to keep the prisoner in custody would be maintained. 5 Department of Justice, United States Marshals Manual §§ 720.04-720.06. Cf. Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae, Smith v. Hooey, No. 495, Misc., October Term, 1967 (habeas corpus ad prosequendum from state court normally honored by Bureau of Prisons). 719 Opinion of the Court. requirement unless the prosecutorial authorities have made a good-faith effort to obtain his presence at trial. The State made no such effort here, and, so far as this record reveals, the sole reason why Woods was not present to testify in person was because the State did not attempt to seek his presence. The right of confrontation may not be dispensed with so lightly. The State argues that petitioner waived his right to confront Woods at trial by not cross-examining him at the preliminary hearing. That contention is untenable. Not only was petitioner unaware that Woods would be in a federal prison at the time of his trial, but he was also unaware that, even assuming Woods' incarceration, the State would make no effort to produce Woods at trial. To suggest that failure to cross-examine in such circumstances constitutes a waiver of the right of confrontation at a subsequent trial hardly comports with this Court's definition of a waiver as "an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege." Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 464 (1938); Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U. S. 1, 4 (1966). Moreover, we would reach the same result on the facts of this case had petitioner's counsel actually crossexamined Woods at the preliminary hearing. See Motes v. United States, 178 U. S. 458 (1900). The right to confrontation is basically a trial right. It includes both the opportunity to cross-examine and the occasion for the jury to weigh the demeanor of the witness. A preliminary hearing is ordinarily a much less searching exploration into the merits of a case than a trial, simply because its function is the more limited one of determining whether probable cause exists to hold the accused for trial. While there may be some justification for holding that the opportunity for cross-examination of a witness at a preliminary hearing satisfies the demands of the confrontation clause where the witness is shown HARLAN, J., concurring. 390 U.S. to be actually unavailable, this is not, as we have pointed out, such a case." The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, concurring. I agree that the State's failure to attempt to obtain the presence of the witness denied petitioner due process, and I therefore concur in the opinion of the Court on the premises of my opinion in Pointer v. Texas, 380 U. S. 400, 408. 6 Cf. Holman v. Washington, 364 F. 2d 618 (C. A. 5th Cir. 1966); Government of the Virgin Islands v. Aquino, 378 F. 2d 540 (C. A. 3d Cir. 1967). Syllabus. ST. AMANT v. THOMPSON. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA. No. 517. Argued April 4, 1968.-Decided April 29, 1968. Petitioner made a televised political speech in the course of which he read questions which he had put to a union member, Albin, and Albin's answers; the answers falsely charged respondent, a public official, with criminal conduct. Respondent sued petitioner for defamation and was awarded damages by the trial judge. The trial judge, having considered New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 (1964), decided after the trial, denied a motion for a new trial. An intermediate appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, having found that petitioner had not acted with actual malice within the meaning of the New York Times rule, i. e., with knowledge that petitioner's statements were false or with reckless disregard of whether they were false or not. The State Supreme Court reversed, finding that there had been sufficient evidence that petitioner had acted in "reckless disregard" in that petitioner had no personal knowledge of respondent's activities; relied solely on Albin's affidavit though there was no evidence as to Albin's veracity; failed to verify the information with others who might know the facts; did not consider whether the statements were defamatory; and mistakenly believed that he had no responsibility for the broadcast because he was merely quoting Albin. Held: In order that it can be found that a defendant, within the meaning of New York Times, acted in "reckless disregard" of whether a defamatory statement which he made about a public official is false or not, there must be sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant had serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. Pp. 730-733. (a) In a defamation action by a public official reckless conduct is not measured by whether a reasonably prudent man would have published the statement or would have investigated before publishing. P. 731. (b) The people's stake in the conduct of public officials is so great that neither the defense of truth nor the standard of ordinary care would adequately implement First Amendment policies. Pp. 731-732. (c) A defendant's testimony that he acted in good faith is not conclusive as to that issue, since the fact finder in the light of all |