California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Nick v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 11 Cal.App.4th 868, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 290 (Cal. App. 1992):
Rather than attempt either to have the fees waived or the subpoena enforced, appellant merely objected at the conclusion of the hearing, claiming a denial of due process resulted from the officer's absence. Even where the right to compel the attendance of witnesses is constitutionally protected, appellant's actions would not amount to a sufficient showing of due diligence to support a claim that the failure of a witness to attend denied him a fair hearing. "Due diligence requires application be made to the court invoking its aid to secure such witnesses long before trial and certainly at a time which would not require an extended interruption of a trial, then almost completed. A defendant may not complain of the absence of a witness unless he had made a showing of due diligence to obtain the attendance of the witness." (People v. Du Bose, supra, 10 Cal.App.3d at p. 549, 89 Cal.Rptr. 134.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.