After testifying before a grand jury, will the defense have access to a witnesses testimony?
411496
yes most deffinately. a defendant has the right to confront their accusers. this is why we have the witness protection program. more or less the government changes your identy and sets you up somewhere else to live. however these deals are made prior to your testimony and generaly reserved for people who can give up the goods on major crime figures or anyone whos life is in iminate danger for testifying this is a very hard status to get.
1005873
Yes, once you get a summons to go testify as a witness, you must go. That is disobeying court orders. Your work HAS to legally give you time off. And don't worry about him... just be honest and take it one step at a time. Good luck!
3595
The right to cross-examine witnesses is the cornerstone of the right to confrontation. There is not much of a cofrontation without cross-examination.
911024
Once you have been served with the subpoena there is no way you can get out of testifying, otherwise you would be in contempt of court and could go to jail until you decide to testify.
38174
a lot! \nsome are...\n  - the counsel is leading the witness\n  - the question calls for a narrative answer\n  - the counsel is harrasing the witness\n  - the counsel is being argumentative\n- witness answer went beyond the scope of the question\n- witness is asked beyond the scope of the question \n- witness character/reputation is not the issue in the trial\n- witness lacks personal knowledge to enable the witness to answer the question\n- the question calls for speculation\n- the testimony is irrelevant
496025
It depends on the judge/justice of the peace/magistrate.  Legally, you are entitled to insist that you have a right to confront all witnesses against you and since the only witness who has any firsthand knowledge of what you allegedly did is not available, the case cannot proceed and must be dismissed.  But it is entirely possible that the judge/JOTP/magistrate either (1) doesn't care or (2) doesn't know what that means, and will let the hearing proceed as the judge, prosecutor, chief witness, and fact finder...to which you can object to, and his only response will be argue it on appeal.
244890
There is no obligation for anyone to say anything that might incriminate themself.  However, if you did not answer questions regarding the ownership of the car, confirm your name and address, you would most probably be arrested on suspicion of stealing that car.\nIf you refuse to speak in court, having made a witness statement, you could most probably be held to be in 'contempt', or treated as a 'hostile witness'.  If you never made a statement, I doubt if anything could be done, as no one could tell if you had any evidence to give.
613655
May depend on the state but... Basically you affirm under oath that what you say is true and did happen to the best of your knowledge. A court date will be set and it will be you plus the state or DA vs the defendent. You had better be able to prove your case in court and have been truthful in the warrant. If you weren't or etc. you could face civil suite by the defendent. If things are what you said then I would not worry and press forward with the truth. There are other things along the way... arraignment, pre-trial, hearing or trial etc. Depends on if the defendent pleads guilty.
730136
First, Normabria (the person who attempted to answer) you do not understand the legal definition of hearsy. It has nothing to do with whether the speaker is present. The definition of hearsay is "an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted." Hearsay can exist even if all parties are present.\n\nAlso, Jon B, you are only partially correct. Rule 801 (d)(1) would apply only if witness 1's prior inconsistent statement took place in a deposition or some other official proceding, or was consistent with testimony and used to rebut fabrication or motive. In this case rule 801 (d)(1) is inapplicable. \n\n     Now to answer the question, you can trust me because I just took evidence last year.  You can't use 803 (3) because witness 1 did not express his state of mind, emotional, or physical condition. Did witness 1 testify to what he (witness 1) said? If so, the defendant can testify to what witness 1 said to show that witness 1 is lying. Presenting what witness 1 said in this manner would be okay because this would not be hearsay. It would not be offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, it would be offered to show that the witness is lying. In other words, the defense can't offer the testimony as proof that witness 1 was threatening him, as that would be hearsay. But the defense could testify as to what witness 1 said if the testimony helps to show that witness 1 was lying. \n\n     Remember a statement is only hearsay if its offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. If it is not offered for that purpose, than it is admissable. The problem with this question is that I don't know exactly what was said. Hearsay is a funny thing, the line between what is hearsay and what is not can be very thin. \n     Is the defendant invoking an affirmative defense such as "self defense" or something? Since I don't know specifics, its kind of hard to give a more definitive answer.
1175007
More info needed. B/w perpetuate testimony and what?
1144713
There is no yes/no answer to your question.\n\nOnly your friend's attorney is in a position to give you specific advice.\n\nAnything that causes the prosecution to produce evidence would seemingly help the defendant. But, only if the evidence exonerates him.
1021654
You need to get your lawyer to subpoena the report.  He can get it prior to the court date, as he will need it to prepare for his arguement.
725031
If they have been tried and sentenced, that will not help much.  If not, then talk to the District Attorney's office about whether they would continue the case if you did not press charges.  They may or may not want to pursue it without your testimony, but you can ask.
280775
Defense attorneys present exculpating evidence showing their client is innocent, or to create reasonable doubts in the jurors’ minds.  They can present witnesses and physical evidence, as well as cross-examine prosecution’s witnesses.  They would also provide an opening and closing argument, as well as select jurors that they think would be sympathetic to their clients.
891525
You'll be asked questions and be expected to answer them as truthfully and completely as you can...There shouldn't be opposing counsel trying to trip you up...I believe you can have your own lawyer present to protect yourself from screwing yourself over...You can probably be expected to be told, to not talk about your testimony...Then you may expect a subpoena to testify during the trial.
141125
Under certain circumstances, the inavailability of the witness will make hearsay admissable.  However, some states have a doctrine that makes the words of the dead even harder to use as evidence.\n\nYou'd need more facts.
171935
In order to meet their burden of proof, the officer will need to testify regarding what steps he/she took to verify the speed the vehicle was travelling.  There is no set minimum time, but testimony would be more credible depending on the length of time involved.