Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In this case, a person arrested in Texas for robbery was deprived of the ability to cross-examine a witness when the lower court allowed the introduction of a transcript of that witness's earlier testimony at a preliminary proceeding instead of compelling attendance by the witness at trial.
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]
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 ...
Historically, to be admissible in court and to ensure maximum reliability and validity, written testimony presented in the form of an affidavit (i.e., the witness would not be appearing in court at the hearing at which the affidavit was considered as evidence) was usually witnessed by another person (in many common law jurisdictions, a notary ...
If a witness identification of the source of their retrieved memory turns out to be mistaken, then the witness will be considered unreliable. While some witnesses see the entirety of a crime happen in front of them, others only witness part of a crime. These latter witnesses are more likely to experience confirmation bias. Witness expectations ...
A Texas inmate whose attorneys say received a death sentence due to false and unscientific expert testimony faced execution Thursday evening for the fatal stabbing of a man during a robbery more ...
A law adopted in 2000 lowered the sentence of a witness who came to an agreement with the prosecution in trials concerning money-laundering, but it was not called a crown witness rule. [25] In 2009 a new crown witness rule came into force and since then, witnesses in a wider range of cases have been allowed to become a crown witnesses. [26] [27]
The final defence expert witness for Donald Trump and his co-defendants in a trial stemming from a blockbuster fraud lawsuit was paid nearly $900,000 for his testimony.