How have courts dealt with the issue of good faith showing in a motion where a witness has absconded from court?

Mention should be made of several cases cited by defendant in support of his position. Each presents a substantially different factual situation from that in the cause before this court. In People v. Casarez, 263 Cal.App.2d 130, 69 Cal.Rptr. 187, the only evidence introduced in support of the good faith showing was the testimony of a narcotics agent to the effect that the missing witness had departed for Chicago; that a telephone call had been made to a Chicago number; and that the individual who answered the call informed the agent that the absent witness was 'downtown.'

In People v. Harris, 266 Cal.App.2d 426, 72 Cal.Rptr. 423, no evidence was produced in support of the claim of due diligence. The entire good faith showing consisted of statements of counsel detailing the number of times the process servers had visited the home of the missing witness who, according to the prosecution, was somewhere in Canada.

In People v. Berger, 272 A.C.A. 671, 77 Cal.Rptr. 617, the state authorities learned that the missing witness was in Colorado. The investigator did nothing more than ask the grandmother of the witness to send a collect telegram verifying that fact. No effort was made to secure the presence of the witness in court.