Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
As a general rule, a witness who is in attendance at a trial in a state other than that of his residence is immune or privileged from the service of civil process (delivery of a subpoena in a civil case, but not a criminal case) while in such a state. Usually, immunity is granted to a witness who voluntarily appears to testify for the benefit ...
A Polk County man convicted of murder will get a new trial after the judge in his case conceded he got a key evidentiary ruling wrong. Andrew Harris was found guilty in November of the 2022 ...
Ellenbogen, 1965, [112] a prosecution for bribing a purchasing agent of the General Services Administration and for conspiring to commit similar offenses, wherein the purchasing agent pleaded guilty prior to the trial and was the principal witness for the government in the defendant's case, it was held that the trial court's refusal to allow ...
View east-northeastward of the "Hedrickite" Temple Lot today. The 2.5-acre "block" shown is the highest-elevation part of a 63.5-acre piece of real estate which has variously been referred to (also) as the "Temple Lot" or "Mormon Temple Lot" or "Temple Parcel" or "Temple Block" or "Temple Property" or "Greater Temple Lot", purchased by Edward Partridge on December 19, 1831.
The murder trial included video of Justus Robertson firing a gun and testimony from accomplices. Robertson said he was forced by his stepdad. After accomplices testify, Franklin County jury ...
Christians in general, especially within the Evangelical tradition, use the term "to testify" or "to give one's testimony" to mean "to tell the story of how one became a Christian". Commonly it may refer to a specific event in a Christian's life in which God did something deemed particularly worth sharing .
After Iowa Supreme Court says victims can't testify via one-way video, Saylor Township man gets a new trial. ... The case went to trial in January 2023 and Dunbar was convicted of first-degree ...
Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the spousal privilege and its application in the law of evidence. In it, the Court held that the witness-spouse alone has a privilege to refuse to testify adversely; the witness may be neither compelled to testify nor foreclosed from testifying.