Can the DA use statements from witnesses? in court....?
I hope you were honest and didn't lie. Lying can get you into a lot of trouble. If you didn't lie and you didn't have anything to do with the crime in question then I don't understand what you're worried about. Your statement is to provide them with information about the crime or criminal. You may be called into court to testify and if and when you do, I can only tell you that you must tell the truth, unless you want to end up in jail too.
Why am I scared to testify in Court?
It can seem scary. I have seen this many times. The judge, jury and prosecutor will be pleased if you come to court dressed nicely (business clothes), if you tell the truth, and if you answer yes/no question with the words "yes" or "no" not "yeah", "uh-huh", etc. The defense attorney will try to trip you up by asking the same question over and over in different ways. Just stick to the truth and that shouldn't be a problem. Give the simplest answers possible, do not elaborate unless the lawyer asks you to, just stick to the facts. Do not give them more info than they ask for. You only have to be in the room with the robber while on the stand, just keep your eyes on the person asking you the question and try not to look at him very much. After this you will probably never see him again. You will do great and it will go by quickly. I don't suggest you get anti-anxiety drugs like some people suggest because they may make you sleepy or appear drugged. Do some deep breathing to calm yourself. Maybe exercise before you go to court to get out the jitters. Court is actually a very boring process, not at all like the exciting drama you see on TV. Like I said, you will do great. If you want more info on the whole court process to calm you down send me a messege and we can go over it.
Can i plead the 5th if i have written a statement against the accused? ?
You can always plead the Fifth, you just can't have it both ways. It's important, first of all, to know that the Fifth Amendment says that you can't be forced to testify against yourself. That means, for example, if you were committing a crime at the time you witnessed something (let's say you were driving drunk), you can refuse to answer questions about the situation so that you don't admit you broke the law. However -- and this is a big however -- that means that all of your testimony, written or oral, is now taken off the record. In other words, you can't testify about something but not something else. If you're not testifying about one thing, you're not testifying at all. It's also important to know that you have to have a reason to plead the Fifth -- it's not a get-out-of-court-free card for anyone who doesn't feel like testifying against someone. That said, if you have already written a statement and sent it to the court, you can ask the judge to allow that declaration to be your statement, and ask if you can be relieved of having to testify in person, now that you have written something instead. But be prepared for the judge to say no and make you testify anyway.
Yes. The Constitution gives you the right to “affirm,” which has the same effect of putting you under penalty of perjury, because among the Framers was William Penn, a founder of Pennsylvania, and a Quaker. Serious members of the Society of Friends (proper name of the Quakers) do not swear because, as I understand it, they believe it violates the biblical directive not to take the name of the Lord in vain.A story. A long time ago I was a judicial law clerk on the district (trial) court in Chicago. My judge was and is excellent and I respect her pretty much without reservation. One of our few disagreements was about the oath. She’d swear witnesses in with the “"so help me, God,” language. I asked her why she didn't use “swear or affirm,” the constitutional formula, pointing out that it might tend to discredit an honest witness who for whatever reason would affirm but not swear. She said she’d stick to her old way of doing things. As it happens the issue never arose while I was working for her, at least to my knowledge.In addition under federal and Illinois (probably other state) law, on a paper submitted to the court you can “state under penalty of perjury” statements are true, or, in Illinois, “certify” a pleading or other filing, which has the same effect, without any mention of a Deity. Some filings have to be certified.
Some people assume that testifying means that the Defendant will somehow be able to explain his side of the story, but that is not what testifying means. Testifying is answering a series of questions by the lawyers. The problem with a Defendant testifying is that he/she is at a disadvantage. The questions are chosen by the lawyers. The end of the questioning is determined by the lawyers. The scope of the questions? By the lawyers. So a skillful prosecutor could ask a few questions that cast the defendant in the most unfavorable light and then abruptly end questioning to leave a bad taste in everyone’s mouth, leaving no time for the Defendant to explain his/herself which is what you’d really want. So, sometimes it’s not worth and can hurt your case by risking it. See, I went to law school. One thing it taught me was the normal contradictions we accept in layman society but would be horrible for court. Here’s an example: You and I are walking downtown, and then i see one, then two, then three people all seem to look at me for a brief period. I say to you, “dang, everybody is staring me down today.” You think nothing of it, right. Well, if I am “testifying” during cross-examination here’s what could happen. Prosecutor: “So, you made a statement that everyone was staring at you, correct?” Me: Yes. Prosecutor: “So how many people actually looked at you?” Me: about 3. Prosecutor: “There are over 7 billion people in the world and only 3 looked at you and that’s what you’d call everyone staring at you?” “Are you a person who doesn’t always say what they mean?” “Do you regularly embellish things to this magnitude?” I have no further questions, judge. See what just happened?
In civil court, you can be, but not in a criminal trial. You have the right to not self-incriminate, so any questions asked would either lead to that possibility, thus be excluded, or be irrelevant (and thus excluded).But civil trials you can be required to testify, and must answer, even if that answer would incriminate yourself (so long as the possibility of a criminal prosecution from that statement were eliminated). If the civil trial precedes the criminal trial, and you could be tried criminally for what you say (or it’s about a separate matter), you may invoke the right of silence. If you are testifying and have any concerns over what will be asked, get your own lawyer. They can help you answer in a manner that’s truthful and not self-incriminating.
Could Jehovah's witnesses testify in court?
What if a Christian does not feel that his conscience permits him to serve on a particular jury? The Bible does not mention jury duty, so he cannot say, ‘It is against my religion to serve on any jury.’ Depending on the case, he might state that serving on the jury for a particular case is against his personal conscience. That might be so if a case involves sexual immorality, abortion, manslaughter, or another issue on which his thinking is shaped by Bible knowledge, not by mere secular law. A mature Christian would also reflect on whether he would share any responsibility for the sentence rendered by judges. If a guilty verdict is in error and the death penalty is imposed, would a Christian on the jury share bloodguilt? If a Christian reported for jury duty, as directed by the government, but because of his personal conscience declined to serve on a particular case despite the insistence of the judge, the Christian should be prepared to face the consequences be that a fine or imprisonment. each Christian faced with jury duty must determine what course to follow, based on his understanding of the Bible and his own conscience. Some Christians have reported for jury duty and have served on certain juries. Others have felt compelled to decline even in the face of punishment. Each Christian has to decide for himself what he will do, and others should not criticize his decision.
Have received subpoena from out-of-state to appear as a prosecution witness in criminal trial. Must I attend?
The answer given you by MBH is correct with one important caveat: If by chance the out-of-state prosecutor actually pursues you to the extent of coming into your state and taking the matter before a judge in your state, everything changes. Subpoenas are very much an in-state construct. They are very serious legal events provided they be valid. The moment the subpoena action is brought into your state, domesticated as you correctly refer to the process, you must give the matter your maximum attention. Any subpoena action within your state is extremely serious. Do not ignore such legal activity. If an in-state court judges the out-of-state subpoena as valid and having merit, you are skewered; you are toast. But as long as the subpoena comes solely from outside your state, you can ignore it. The out-of-state court simply has no jurisdiction over you. Not without first coming into your state and taking the matter before a judge in your state, and most likely within your county. Whether you will have the opportunity at that point to a local hearing before a local judge I do not know. But you can tell an out-of-state judge to go pound sand, so long as it's not a federal judge. Good luck. I think you will be OK. And it was cool of you not to respond to the subpoena. Most people are unaware inviting response is a trick subpoena issuers use to confirm your receipt of the subpoena. It's a trap. You got that one right! Also ignore the early answers you got. Those poor people must have been stung by subpoenas in the past. But they do not realize the critical distinction between in-state and out-of-state subpoena actions. Finally, just to be on the safe side, I would not make travel plans any time soon for the state that issued you the subpoena. Why play with fire! If you ignore their subpoena and then tread on their turf, there's at least a chance you could be arrested. But take it to the bank, they can not and will not come into your state and arrest you. Even if you ignore a domesticated subpoena, it is your own state authorities that will arrest you, not the authorities from the originating state. They have no jurisdiction in your state. And if they try to force your extradition, you can fight them in your local court. Relax, have fun, but stay home.
U.S. perspectiveYes, a witness’s oral testimony can be admitted at trial, assuming that the witness is competent to provide that testimony and there are no grounds for objection. There is no general requirement that oral testimony be accompanied by physical evidence.For example, an eyewitness might testify as to what he or she saw when a crime was committed, or a party to a contract might testify as to why he or she entered into that contract.It is up to the trier of fact (judge or jury) to consider that testimony with all other evidence in reaching a verdict.