Sentences with phrase «prosecution witness if»

The Court also agreed with Matthew Amponsah that he will intimidate prosecution witness if granted bail, TV3's Godfred Tanam added, and may even travel outside.

Not exact matches

Mascia insisted the rules of equity will apply if the defence wants to call back a prosecution witness to ask additional questions not covered under cross-examination.

One testy prosecution witness, after solemnly giving his name, immediately pleaded the fifth amendment when asked if he knew the defendant.

In addition, the court held that the police counsel could not convince it as to how the defendant is likely to influence prosecution witnesses in the cause of his trial if released on bail.

The spokesman declined to say if Howe — who was on the witness stand for the prosecution four days this week in the Percoco trial — will be back as scheduled on Monday in the lower Manhattan courtroom.

Before the judge's ruling, Assistant U.S. Attorney Catherine Mirabile had said in court that the prosecution may want to call other witnesses Monday morning if the judge decided to strike some testimony from the record.

(The press materials understandably keep mum about Basic Instinct but are not at all reluctant to describe the murder trial as «reminiscent of the romantic intrigue contained in such courtroom movie classics from the late 1950s as Billy Wilder's Witness for the Prosecution and Otto Preminger's Anatomy of a Murder,» politely admitting that Body of Evidence dutifully — if pointlessly — rips off both these very entertaining movies.)

A thought experiment: the prosecution call Prof Lindzen or Roy Spencer as a rebuttal witness — should they be removed from their accademic posts if they agree to testify?

Consequently, trial judges have nothing to lose and often much to gain by permitting at least brief voir dire / cross examination of prosecution witnesses before a damning exhibit is offered into evidence, and also need to think twice before allowing inadmissible hearsay into evidence to see if the prosecutor «ties together» the evidence to make it no longer inadmissible hearsay.

There are, however, also concerns for the conduct of the public inquiry itself, as witnesses may be more reluctant to give frank and open evidence if they feel exposed to the risk of a criminal prosecution as a result, and they may refuse to give evidence or disclose documents on the basis of the privilege against self - incrimination.

If the prosecution can prove that your witness intimidation was linked to gang activity you could be sentenced to 7 years to life in prison under the California criminal street gang enhancement.

If there is anything you don't understand about the prosecution's case, make a note so that you can ask about it when you get to cross-examine the officer and prosecution's witnesses.

In these cases, even if the protection against self - incrimination in section 13 of the Charter applies — which provides that «A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence» — the SKCA held that prior false statements are admissible where the deceit is the substance of the offence, regardless of whether it was «incriminating evidence» or related to «perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence» (Staranchuk SKCA at para 5).

So if the prosecution uses that witness the defense can then point out the inaccurate statements.

The legal experts may want to comment about what a judge would think about this, and Nicholas Psoras's answer already hints at it, but I can promise you this much: if they find it necessary, the prosecution will put on the stand an expert witness with impeccable credentials who will testify to what I write below, and the defence is not going to be able to find anyone reputable to testify to the opposite.

If a person makes a statement to police and 2 years later in a courtroom, under oath but not the same case, they make a statement that directly contradicts their witness statement does the defense have an obligation to inform the prosecution of that fact or can they use it in court to discredit the witness on the stand?

You'll be in a situation where you're trussed into a process — there used to be a sense that if you went on the witness stand and you took an oath then you would tell the truth because the sanctions for not telling the truth were very great, people were worries about perjury and contempt of court — and in fact the family courts can make a reference to the criminal courts for prosecution for perjury but they just don't do it.

If this is a prosecution witness, there's also the confrontation clause which the defendant could likely invoke to require the witness to actually appear.

In brief, the new procedure will require that the defendant serves on the prosecution and court a document containing the following: (i) the reasons why it would be unjust for the guilty plea to remain unchanged; (ii) what, if any, evidence the defendant wishes to call; (iii) identity of any proposed witness; and (iv) whether legal professional privilege is waived, specifying any material name and date.

As to the latter, in such a case it will plainly assist the jury to know that the accused has a propensity for untruthfulness, especially if the prosecution witnesses do not, and that this is so whether or not telling lies is an element of the offence charged.

A prosecution would be particularly unlikely if the witnesses and / or notary confirmed his story that it was your father's signature or was authorized, and if the lawyer...

(E) Wages or profits lost by the victim, and if the victim is a minor, wages or profits lost by the minor's parent, parents, guardian, or guardians, due to time spent as a witness or in assisting the police or prosecution.