can a minor be compelled to testify in a court of law?
609358
Dear Friend,\n\nThey have to at least appear.  If they want to move to quash the summons as unduly burdensome (so they don't have to actually speak), they should hire an experienced criminal lawyer.\n\nThe right to remain silent only kicks in when it's you the police are or may be prosecuting.  Unless your kid said something self-incriminating, meaning exposing him or her to criminal liability, there's no argument there.\n\nYours in Him,\nFrancesois
536708
Yes, but it depends on the actual offense.\n\nIf the character assination is something that could cost you your freedom or lively hood such as being accused adn arrested for child porn, child abuse, drugs, any felonty really. \n\nDepending on where the court is the parents will just recieve a slap on the hand, or a small amount of damages. Since you cant sue a minor but their guardians.\n\nBut if you want to set an example and you have a strong case then it may be the thing the minor needs to get their life right. \n\nGood Luck!
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.
115937
You may be able to file a motion to quash the subpoena.  It depends on the laws in your state.  My guess, however, is that trying to fight the subpoena will be as timely and more expensive than just testifying.\n\nYou might also contact the attorney that issued the subpoena to see if there's anyway to get your weak testimony submitted without you having to actually appear in Court.\n\nBut if you do not show, a bench warrant might be issued and you could, potentially, be arrested for your failure to appear. Again, rules vary by state, so I wouldn't chance it.
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!
944983
It requires the defendant to show that, but for the actions of the authorities, he would not have broken the law.  \n\nFor example, say he is charged with receiving stolen goods.   The police set up a sting operation at a parking garage, and when he came to get his own car, they gave him one that appeared to be the one he had left with them earlier, but was in fact a stolen car.  That would be a definite case of entrapment, because it's a logical conclusion that if they had brought a different color, make, or model, he'd have known and refused delivery. \n\nJust because the police hired the fifteen year old to try to get into a bar with her own ID showing she was fifteen doesn't mean he was entrapped when he lets her in.   It's a logical inference that any other fifteen year old would have been admitted, and the fact that this particular one was already willing to be a witness doesn't alter the defendant's behavior. \n\nThey have to show that the police conduct was actually responsible for the crime.
956083
You are considered by law innocent unless you are convicted and found guilty.\n\nBut they can re-file when the witness can testify again
684170
Most courts usually consider the childs request at about 11-12 yrs old, but that doesn't mean you will get your wish. There is not a "law" per se, but rather the merits of each individual situation. It is really up to the judge.
951380
The officers will not need his consent.  If they believe there is a reason, they will search the vehicle to make sure there is nothing in it that imposes the danger to the minor. (In the US, the "minor" is anyone who is under the age of 18).
803632
As a minor, you should have an advocate assigned to you. Petition the judge with a politely written letter.\n\nThe situation is not easy, and in many states Child services is a chronic scandal occasionally rising to the level of criminality.
824681
Well, if that someone was under oath and was "giving himself in" I'm sure that they would accommodate the person!\n\nSeeing as how you said that there was a Court involved, they would certainly ask the Bailiff to take the person into custody in order that justice may be served.  It would be a time-consuming process of course as are any arrests but I guarantee if you are under oath and admit to a crime (especially murder) then the Court would be obligated to hold that person and begin processing the paperwork.\n\nAnybody who would testify in Court to doing a crime who didn't really commit the crime would then be charged with perjury which is punishable by whatever the State laws allow.\n\nSomeone who truthfully, under oath, admits to a crime would be believed as they swore they would tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth So Help Them God.  So God if your listening, Help Them!!!\n\n..................think about it........................
109029
A violation of order can be issued that will summons her back to court.  If she does not return to court, either a judge can rule against her and Social SErvices may take the child, or the judge may issue a bench warrant to bring her back to court to answer the summons.\n\nAll states are different of course, this has just been some of the cases I have seen in New York.
746733
Report, testify and then go into hiding.\n\nCoach
868104
You have the right to be represented by an attorney at every aspect of your criminal case - including the initial hearing.  Most courts require your appearance for an initial hearing so that you can be advised of the criminal charges and penalties.  You may not be required to attend future hearings but make sure you receive legal advise on that matter before you fail to appear.
845559
To advise the child on legal and court matters.
791514
You must  act and you  must act in time. Unless there is an agreement  between the prosecutor's  and the defence attorney's office that you won't have to show up on that particular day, the police will take you, doesn't matter what. Now, you are an E.R. nurse. Your institution must have a lawyer. You are part of the team. His job is to be there for you. Do not  hesitate to contact him. Don't feel intimidated.  He cannot charge you any fee. Remember?  Your part of the team. And you asking him to speak up for you to post-pone your court appearence for humanitarian reasons.It is in the Criminal Code. Your fighting for your child. Be brave. My very best wishes for your child's speedy recovery and that you can put all the problems behind you.
426998
An informant is not a friend of the court (amicus curiae).  \n\nAn informant is a different kind of witness, so it's a little difficult to answer your question.  Informants are not part of the court process other than as a witness, if they are brought before the court at all.  \n\nInformants often work directly with the police, in ways the police themselves cannot.  For example, an informant may be used to introduce an undercover police officer to a criminal for the purpose of furthering a criminal investigation.  Informants might be used as an investigative tool for conducting a criminal investigation (i.e., purchasing narcotics, stolen property, infiltrating street gangs, etc., under police supervision).  \n\nThey would likely still be a witness to one degree or another, but police often use legal strategies and tactics to prevent the informant from being a percipient witness...one who is actually an eyewitness and might be called to testify.  \n\nSo while your question is a little hard to answer because what you want to know isn't all that clear, you can consider a witness in court as anyone who is subpoenaed to testify.  An informant is unlikely to be subpoenaed, but may have contributed considerably to the case before the court.\n\nHope that's what you're looking for.