William Rehnquist

“ There may be good reasons not to compensate prisoners for testifying at federal trials; they are seldom gainfully employed in prison, and therefore do not suffer the loss of income from attendance which many other witnesses do. But the same is true of children and retired persons, who are clearly entitled to witness fees under the statute and customarily receive them. We cannot say that the payment of witness fees to prisoners is so bizarre that Congress "could not have intended" it. ”

“ The conclusion is virtually inescapable, therefore, that the general language "witness in attendance at any court of the United States" found in subsection (a) (1) includes prisoners unless they are otherwise excepted in the statute.
Respondents rely on the cognate provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1825 to sustain the decision below. That section provides:
" (a) In any case in which the United States . . . is a party, the United States marshal for the district shall pay all fees of witnesses on the certificate of the United States attorney or assistant United States attorney, . . . ”

“ Although respondents' reading of these two sections is literally plausible, it is inconsistent with respondents' own concessions and with our decision in Hurtado v. United States, 410 U.S. 578, 93 S.Ct. 1157, 35 L.Ed.2d 508 (1973) . Respondents admit that defense witnesses who appear other than by subpoena-by nothing more than verbal arrangement among the parties-are routinely paid witness fees. And in Hurtado, we upheld the right of material witnesses who were detained pursuant to former Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 46 (b) to receive witness fees. ”