No. No one has the right to impede justice. If they have information that is material and relevant to the case, they do not have the option to withhold it. They may be questioned as a "hostile witness" or they may be ordered by the judge to testify. If they refuse they can be held in contempt of court and jailed and/or fined.
Eyewitness testimony is a legal term. A person who has seen someone or something and can bear witness to the fact. In criminal law, evidence is received from a witness "who has actually seen an event and can so testify in court"
If you are issued a subpoena or material witness warrant to testify upon matters of fact, then you cannot get your expenses back. If you are providing expert witness testimony then you are not compelled to testify and may charge expenses and a fee.
Yes, in fact the fifth amendment only applies to the court system. Unless you take the stand (in which you waive your fifth amendment right) you can not be called to testify. If you've waived that right you don't get it back during that hearing.
Anyone, including convicted felons, can be subpoenaed to testify in court and can actually testify in court. Convicted felons often testify in court. By cooperating, they may obtain better treatment or even a reduced sentence. The fact of their conviction, however, may reduce their credibility in the eyes of the Judge or jury.
No, a lay-witness to a will has no such responsibility, their only necessity is that they can testify to the fact that the person signing the will was, in fact, the testator, and that they signed it of their own free will. They have no other legal responsbiility.
No. And the MAIN reason is, not the fact that you may be reformed - it is that whenever you showed up in court to testify on an arrest or in an investigation, the defense attorney would only have to introduce your past record in order to DESTROY your believability as a witness.
A prosecution witness is someone who will provide evidence for the prosecutions case. If i was representing a client who was shot by his friend and witness by another friend I, as the lawyer (prosecutor), would be representing my client (the victim, or plaintiff), and suing the defendant (the shooter) and calling the witness to testify on behalf of my client (the victim) proving the fact that the defendant shot my client (the plaintiff).
It is 'the court' who decides who gets to be qualified as an "expert witness" - if the testimony was as badly mistaken as the questioner leads us to believe then the judge (or the jury) will take that discrepancy into account when they consider the verdict.
No, a person on trial for a crime doesn't have to testify if they choose not to do so. In fact, depending on the case, attorneys will often advise their client not to testify.
In North America, a deposition is the out-of-court oral testimony of a witness that is reduced to writing for later use in court or for discovery purposes.
No. The US Supreme Court hears most cases under appellate jurisdiction, and does not listen to witness testimony. In fact, appellate courts may not retry cases, but must accept the factual determination of the lower court and/or trial jury. The US Supreme Court's role in the appellate process is to determine whether the petitioner/plaintiff's constitutional rights were violated by a law or the legal process, not to determine a defendant's guilt or innocence. For more information, see Related Questions, below.
If that person is called to court to testify against you at your trial you will learn their identity. Other than that, you have no legal right to know the information - and in fact - if it was an anonymous call that brought them to the scene of your offense, the police themselves may not even know.