In People v. Hamilton (1985) 41 Cal.3d 408 (criticized on other grounds in People v. Hamilton (1988) 45 Cal.3d 351, 357), a witness from Oklahoma testified at the preliminary hearing in California, maintained regular contact with the prosecutor's investigator, was served with a subpoena for trial, and appeared cooperative. The witness disappeared about two weeks before trial and could not be found in Oklahoma. Defendant argued the prosecution failed to use due diligence because it never used the Uniform Act to secure the witness's attendance. (Hamilton, supra, at pp. 430-431.) The witness from Oklahoma had been cooperative, was served with a subpoena for trial, maintained regular contact with the prosecutor's investigator, and was last in contact with the investigator approximately a month before the originally scheduled trial date, when he was informed the trial date was continued. About two weeks before trial the investigator discovered that the witness had disappeared. The witness was no longer at his Oklahoma employer, was separated from his wife, and could not be located by the Oklahoma sheriff's department. (Hamilton, supra, 41 Cal.3d at pp. 430-431.) The defendant argued the prosecution failed to use due diligence because it never used the Uniform Act to secure the witness's attendance. "Since the witness could not be located after his unexpected disappearance, it would have been pointless to have used the uniform act. " (Hamilton, at p. 431.)