People have a right to refuse medical treatment. Be sure to have a witness in case there are legal problems later.
(in the US) Yes, the accused has the Constitutional right to be confronted by the witness against him.
These are the laws of contract and consumer protection that apply in the country in which you live.
A show up is right away, when a witness or victim is taken to see the suspect, and a line up is multiple person with similar features behind the window.
To interview a witness or victim of a crime, it would have to be with the permission of that person and not interfere with the investigation by authorities. A victim or a witness is a private citizen and has the right to refuse or cooperate with an unofficial interview.Added: If the case is still open and under active investigation the private party would have to secure permission of the investigating authorities to speak with the victim or witness in depth, or run the risk of criminal prosecution themselves for "Interfering With An Investigation, or even "Obstruction of Justice." The "press" is, of course, exempted from this insofar as their casual and immediate questions are concerned, but would be prohibited from conducting lengthy in-depth interviews.
The U.S. constitution affords every suspect the right to confront his accuser. This is what has enabled organized criminals to intimidate witnesses and created the witness protection program.
There isn't a dedicated Victim's Advocate in the United States court system. However, many states have passed laws guaranteeing the victim a right to speak at sentencing during certain types of crimes (violent crimes, sexual crimes, etc.).
If a person on a witness stand is being questioned about liability for an act that he did not personally take part in, no. If he is being held accountable for it then yes.
In a way yes because it hurts your reputaion. But in a way no because there is no telling what you may do to the person if you find out. That's sort of like the witness protection program.
Witness is the correct spelling when referring to a single person."The witness has arrived in court".Witnesses is correct when referring to more than one person."The witnesses were vital to the case".
Not sure if I understand the question correctly but surely any adult Jehovah's Witness or adult non Jehovah's Witness has the right to refuse a blood transfusion. If not then it means that someone else has the right to force a medical procedure on another.
• The right to a speedy trial! • The right to a public trial! • The right to notified of the nature and circumstances of the alleged crime! • The right to confront a witness who will testify against the accused! • The right to find a witness who will speak in favor of the accused! •The right to a lawyer! •J