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 ...
The obligation of the individual to attend the court as a witness is enforced by a process of the court, particular process being the subpoena ad testificandum, commonly called the subpoena in the United States. This writ, or form, commands the witness, under penalty, to appear at a trial to give testimony.
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]
Texas’ parole board on Monday denied clemency for death row inmate Ramiro Gonzales, who is scheduled to be executed Wednesday for a 2001 murder, despite the fact a key expert witness no longer ...
In eyewitness identification, in criminal law, evidence is received from a witness "who has actually seen an event and can so testify in court". [1]The Innocence Project states that "Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing."