In Mancusi v. Stubbs (1972) 408 U.S. 204, the petitioner was convicted of a felony in New York and was sentenced as a repeat offender because he previously suffered a conviction in Tennessee. He petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in the federal courts, asserting the Tennessee conviction was constitutionally unsound because it was obtained in violation of his right to confrontation. (Id. at p. 205 92 S. Ct. at p. 2309.) The petitioner kidnapped and shot a husband and wife in Tennessee in 1954. The wife died, but the husband survived and testified against the petitioner in his first trial. After the trial, the husband returned to his native Sweden. The petitioner's conviction was reversed and he was retried. The husband's son took the stand and testified concerning his father's permanent residence in Sweden. Over the petitioner's objection, the prosecution was allowed to read to the jury the husband's testimony from the first trial. (Id. at pp. 207-209 92 S. Ct. at pp. 2310-2311.) The Supreme Court found that the use of the Tennessee conviction to sentence the petitioner as a repeat offender in New York did not violate the petitioner's right to confrontation. Distinguishing Barber v. Page, supra, 390 U.S. 719, the court stated: "Upon discovering that the husband resided in a foreign nation, the State of Tennessee, so far as this record shows, was powerless to compel his attendance at the second trial, either through its own process or through established procedures depending on the voluntary assistance of another government. We therefore hold that the predicate of unavailability was sufficiently stronger here than in Barber that a federal habeas court was not warranted in upsetting the determination of the state trial court as to the husband's unavailability." (Mancusi v. Stubbs, supra, 408 U.S. at pp. 212-213 92 S. Ct. at p. 2313.) The Mancusi court reasoned: "The Uniform Act to secure the attendance of witnesses from without a State, the availability of federal writs of habeas corpus ad testificandum, and the established practice of the United States Bureau of Prisons to honor state writs of habeas corpus ad testificandum, all supported the Court's conclusion in Barber that the State has not met its obligations to make a good-faith effort to obtain the presence of the witness merely by showing that he was beyond the boundaries of the prosecuting State. There have been, however, no corresponding developments in the area of obtaining witnesses between this country and foreign nations." (Mancusi v. Stubbs, supra, 408 U.S. at p. 212 92 S. Ct. at p. 2313.) While the Mancusi court commented the trial court "was powerless to compel the witness's attendance" (Mancusi v. Stubbs, supra, 408 U.S. at p. 212), it made this statement in the context of explaining that there were no procedures or agreements similar to the cooperation between states when the witness resided in a foreign nation. As will be seen, that no longer is true with the advent of mutual legal assistance treaties.