Respondent
respondent
respondent
No, you cannot plead the Fifth Amendment to every question asked during a trial. The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from self-incrimination, but it does not give them the right to refuse to answer all questions.
The term "respondant" usually refers to a person in a civil court trial against whom the legal action is initiated. In a criminal case, a 'respondant' would be referred to as the 'defendant.'
Yes, a witness can object while on the stand during a trial if they believe a question is improper or irrelevant. However, it is typically the role of the attorneys to make objections on behalf of the witness.
The Supreme Court reviews most cases under its appellate jurisdiction. Apart from hearing legal arguments from the petitioner's and respondent's attorneys, which are limited to 30 minutes each, the entire case review is done "on paper" (or on the computer). Since there is no trial, there is no exposure to a "defendant" (assuming the case involves criminal law). US Supreme Court justices do not have contact, let alone social contact, with parties to cases under review. This would be considered extremely unethical, and could be grounds for impeachment. If a justice has a prior relationship of any kind with the petitioner, respondent, or any party to the case, or any direct or indirect personal interest in the case, he or she would recuse him- or herself due to a conflict of interest, and the matter would be heard and decided without his or her input.
The witness on the stand provided crucial information that helped the court understand what happened during the incident in question.
Yes, Alex Murdaugh is not in jail during his trial.
Tom Robbinson a black man convicted of raping Mayella Ewell :D
The petitioner waits for the motion to be either granted or denied. If granted the verdict will be thrown out and a new trial ordered, if denied the original verdict will stand.
During a jury trial, absolutely not. The only time I've ever heard a judge directly question a witness was during a non-jury trial when they wanted to elicit specific information about a complicated subjet that the witness had already tesitified to under direct and cross. Anything else, such as suggested in the question, would be MOST improper and result in a mis-trial.