Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Frequently, the most desired witness (the deponent) is an opposite party to the action. In that instance, legal notice may be given to that person's attorney, and a subpoena is not required. However, if the witness is not a party to the lawsuit (a third party) or is reluctant to testify, then a subpoena must be served on that party. [13]
Illinois (1988), the Court rejected a challenge to witness preclusion rules, holding that the Clause did not provide for an "absolute" right for defendants. [13] The Court held that "The Compulsory Process Clause provides [the defendant] with an effective weapon, but it is a weapon that cannot be used irresponsibly". [ 14 ]
Convictions can only be made when proof beyond a reasonable doubt is achieved. [20] If it is a matter of urgency or the contempt was done in front of a judge, that person can be punished immediately. Punishment can range from the person being imprisoned for a period of less than five years or until the person complies with the order or fine.
The rule excluding hearsay arises from a concern regarding the statement's reliability. Courts have four principal concerns with the reliability of witness statements: the witness may be lying (sincerity risk), the witness may have misunderstood the situation (narration risk), the witness's memory may be wrong (memory risk), and the witness's perception was inaccurate (perception risk). [8]
In monetary law examination of witnesses is less stringent than in capital law, and testimony is accepted even despite minor contradictions that may exist in the testimony of two separate witnesses. (If one witness says a defendant owes 100, and the other says the sum is 200, the judges accept that both witnesses agree to the existence of a 100 ...
“You should have a pastor to help guide you to the other place,” one justice said. Oklahoma resumed executions Oct. 28 after more than six years. Another execution had been scheduled to be ...
the witness is subject to cross-examination about the prior statement. [4] There is no requirement that the prior consistent statement have been made under oath at a prior trial or hearing. A form of prior consistent statement excepted from this rule is that of prior identification by the witness of another person in a lineup. [citation needed]
The federal witness protection program was developed because of the difficulty of prosecuting cases where witnesses would disappear shortly before trial. [8] [9] [not specific enough to verify] These programs frequently require the witness to leave his residence or even family so that he can be protected before the trial occurs.