Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided that the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution (guaranteeing the right of a criminal defendant to force the attendance of witnesses for their side) is applicable in state courts as well as federal courts. [1]
As a result of this testimony, Adams was given the death penalty. His conviction was unanimously upheld by the Texas Courts of Appeals in 1979. [12] In 1995, Grigson was expelled from the American Psychiatric Association and the Texas Society of Psychiatric Physicians for unethical conduct relating to expert witness testimony. [13] [14]
Eyewitness testimony is the account a bystander or victim gives in the courtroom, describing what that person observed that occurred during the specific incident under investigation.
To better understand why a case that had seemingly strong evidence ended with such an attractive deal for the teen’s killers, Tribune reporters obtained thousands of pages of court documents ...
Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of the right of to confront accusers in state court proceedings. The Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that, in criminal prosecutions , the defendant has a right "...to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have ...
(The Center Square) – The state of Texas has two more wins in court, in a sweeping small business federal regulatory action that a federal judge ruled is unconstitutional and a federal agency ...
Fighting against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's effort to halt a series of court-ordered depositions, former agency employees turned whistleblowers are again arguing to the Supreme Court of ...
However, if the prosecutor acquires evidence substantiating the crime independently of the witness's testimony, the witness may then be prosecuted. Prosecutors at the state level may offer a witness either transactional or use and derivative use immunity, but at the federal level, use and derivative use immunity is much more common. [citation ...