Intimidating a witness kentucky 100 free xxxchatrooms
The expense and per diem shall be allowed by the Circuit Court and certified to the circuit clerk for payment.24.
As authorized by KRS 134.450, the Christian County Sheriff offered those delinquent property tax claims for sale to the public. 1385 (1940) (“Any statement by a trial court to a witness which is so severe as to put him or other witnesses present in fear of the consequences of testifying freely constitutes reversible error.”). We find it difficult to conceive that the inaccurate warning, whether in good faith or otherwise, can have any useful effect except to dissuade a defendant from exercising his right to testify. The appellant contends that these comments violate his right against self-incrimination as embodied in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Section 11 of the Kentucky Constitution and also KRS 421.225 which states: In any criminal or penal prosecution the defendant, on his own request, shall be allowed to testify in his own behalf, but his failure to do so shall not be commented upon or create any presumption against him.
For example, Movants argue that "the Jefferson County Grand Jury alone issued over When a witness is attached he shall pay the costs of the attachment, unless it appears from evidence he was not in fault.
When a witness who has been duly subpoenaed fails without a good excuse, to appear on the trial, he shall pay all costs resulting from his failure.
No person shall be compelled to disclose in any legal proceeding or trial before any court, or before any grand or petit jury, or before the presiding officer of any tribunal, or his agent or agents, or before the General Assembly, or any committee thereof, or before any city or county legislative body, or any committee thereof, or elsewhere, the source of any information procured or obtained by him, and published in a newspaper or by a radio or television broadcasting station by which he is engaged or employed, or with which he is connected. 421.140 limits the punishment for such a contempt to a fine not exceeding and imprisonment not exceeding 24 hours. When a witness is brought before a court for contempt by disobedience of a subpoena, and it is shown that the legal fees for travel and one (1) day’s attendance were paid or tendered to him when the subpoena was served, and that he failed to attend without reasonable cause, the court may summarily order him to pay the party, on whose behalf he was summoned, the costs occasioned to him by the disobedience of the subpoena, not exceeding twenty dollars (); and he shall also be liable for any damages occasioned by the failure to attend., prohibits such evidence because they were interested parties. Warren, Annotation, Statements, comments, or conduct of court or counsel regarding perjury, as ground for new trial or reversal in civil action or criminal prosecution other than for perjury, 127 A. While Webb, Blackwell, and Hillard concerned intimidating a defense witness, it follows that the same reasoning would apply with even greater force if it is the defendant who is being intimidated. Thus, we conclude that, despite the absence of other intimidating factors, the trial court’s inaccurate warning to a criminal defendant that a perjury charge is a likely consequence of his election to testify, when in fact it is not, is always error. The appellant argues that the above-listed comments by the prosecutor unnecessarily called the jury’s attention to the fact that appellant failed to testify and, further, suggested that appellant had a need to testify to rebut the prosecution’s evidence.
provides: ‘No person shall be compelled to disclose in any legal proceeding or trial before any court, or before any grand or petit jury, or before the presiding officer of any tribunal, or his agent or agents, or before the General Assembly, or any committee thereof, or before any city or county legislative body, or any committee thereof, or elsewhere, the source of any information procured or obtained by him, and published in a newspaper or by a radio or television broadcasting station by which he is engaged or employed, or with which he is connected.’Simply stated, the key question in this case is whether or not the articles published were based on information in the possession of the reporters at the time, and the respondents claimed that as a practical matter there was no reasonable or practical alternative to the subpoenas duces tecum for obtaining such discovery at the point where the trial court acted to overrule the newspaper’s motion to quash, which was further qualified by its protective order. Disobedience of a subpoena; intentional evasion of a service of it, by concealment, or otherwise; concealment or removal of a minor to prevent service of a subpoena upon him, or preventing his attendance as a witness, by a person having control of him; or a refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe an affidavit or deposition when lawfully ordered, may be punished as a contempt of the court or officer by whom the attendance or testimony of the witness is required. Ruby, pro se, appeals a domestic violence order (DVO) entered against him by the Jefferson Family Court. ." The use of the term "may" renders the decision to exercise the court’s contempt power discretionary. The procedure in determining contempt and its sentence becomes the true issue in these cases. These statutory limits were, however, held unconstitutional in Arnett v. What the witnesses testified to was the fact that the testator had on a number of occasions stated that he wanted his daughter, Juanita, to have the "old home place." These witnesses already had obtained their bequests which… Having determined that the trial court’s warning to Appellant was error, we review further to determine if it is error that requires reversal. The appellant’s next contention is that he was forced to testify in violation of his constitutional rights.In all criminal or penal actions that are removed from any court of this state to a federal court, the officers of the federal court and the witnesses who are subpoenaed and attend such court in behalf of the state are entitled to the same fees, per diem and mileage allowed under United States statutes to such officers and witnesses for similar services in similar cases when subpoenaed by and for the United States.