Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Criminal Procedure Commons™

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Testimony

Discipline
Institution
Publication Year
Publication
Publication Type

Articles 121 - 129 of 129

Full-Text Articles in Criminal Procedure

Criminal Law-Reiterated Contempt Of Court, Robert C. Bonges Apr 1964

Criminal Law-Reiterated Contempt Of Court, Robert C. Bonges

Michigan Law Review

The defendant was found guilty of criminal contempt of court in a civil proceeding for giving "don't remember" answers, after having been granted immunity from prosecution, to questions concerning his activities, asked during a grand jury investigation of an attempted homicide. For his refusal to testify, the defendant was given the maximum penalty provided for criminal contempt under the applicable statute. After paying the fine and serving the sentence, the defendant was brought before the same grand jury thirty-five days later and was asked the same questions. The defendant repeated the "don't remember" answers and was again fined and incarcerated. …

Go to article

Constitutional Law - Due Process And Right Of Confrontation- Jencks Act, Robert J. Margolin S.Ed. Apr 1960

Constitutional Law - Due Process And Right Of Confrontation- Jencks Act, Robert J. Margolin S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

The Jencks Act like the rule it purportedly reaffirmed, was designed to insure "justice." Although the stated purpose of the act was to preserve the rights of any defendant under due process of law, the question remains unresolved whether, in articulating the rule in terms of "justice," the Court in Jencks v. United States incorporated it into the requirements of due process. To be sure, the underlying intent of both the Court and Congress is unclear, but of far more concern than the intent is whether the Jencks Act, in fact, violates the constitutional mandates of the Fifth and Sixth …

Go to article

Constitutional Law - Privilege Against Self-Incrimination - Danger Of Prosecution In Other Jurisdictions, George R. Haydon, Jr. Apr 1958

Constitutional Law - Privilege Against Self-Incrimination - Danger Of Prosecution In Other Jurisdictions, George R. Haydon, Jr.

Michigan Law Review

Defendant, a witness called by the New Hampshire attorney general in an investigation of subversive activities, was granted statutory immunity in New Hampshire from criminal prosecution which might arise from his testimony and was ordered to testify. Since any disclosures would create serious danger of prosecution by the United States and Massachusetts, whose agencies were also investigating his activities, defendant refused to testify despite the grant of immunity, invoking the privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the state constitution. He was found guilty of contempt, subject to his exceptions regarding the constitutionality of the immunity statute. On hearing before the state …

Go to article

Legislation - Federal Criminal Procedure - Modification Of Jencks Decision, Raymond J. Dittrich, Jr. S.Ed. Jan 1957

Legislation - Federal Criminal Procedure - Modification Of Jencks Decision, Raymond J. Dittrich, Jr. S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Defendant was convicted of a violation of 18 U.S.C. §1001. During the trial, the court denied defendant's motion to order the government to produce for defendant's inspection reports submitted by government witnesses to government agents. The reports dealt with the same subject about which these witnesses later testified. The court of appeals affirmed the decision. On certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, held, reversed, one justice dissenting. The government has a privilege to refuse to surrender statements made by its prospective witnesses, but it may claim the privilege only at the expense of a dismissal of its case …

Go to article

Constitutional Law - Privilege Against Self-Incrimination -Effect Of Immunity Statute, Paul A. Heinen S.Ed. Dec 1956

Constitutional Law - Privilege Against Self-Incrimination -Effect Of Immunity Statute, Paul A. Heinen S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Petitioner was brought before a federal grand jury and questioned as to his and other persons' membership in the Communist Party. After petitioner refused to answer the questions on the ground that the answers would be self-incriminating and therefore his refusal was privileged under the Fifth Amendment, the United States attorney, proceeding under the provisions of the Immunity Act of 1954, filed an application in the United States district court requesting that petitioner be required to answer the questions. The district court, upholding the constitutionality of the act, ordered petitioner to answer the questions, and petitioner's appeal from this order …

Go to article

Witnesses--Competence Of Defendant's Spouse As Witness For The Prosecution, William R. Worth S.Ed. Jun 1950

Witnesses--Competence Of Defendant's Spouse As Witness For The Prosecution, William R. Worth S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Defendant, on trial for the offense of transporting across state lines a sum of money exceeding $5,000 feloniously obtained by fraud, was convicted largely through the testimony of his victim. The fraud charged consisted of a lightning courtship and hasty marriage, closely followed by the disappearance of the new husband along with the entire estate of the too-gullible bride. Over the objection of the defendant, his wife was permitted to testify to the swindle practiced upon her. After conviction, he filed a motion for a new trial, contending that it was error to permit a wife to testify against her …

Go to article

Witnesses-Privilege Against Self-Incrimination-Effect Of Incorrect Decision By Trial Judge In Compelling Answer When Privilege Asserted Jun 1943

Witnesses-Privilege Against Self-Incrimination-Effect Of Incorrect Decision By Trial Judge In Compelling Answer When Privilege Asserted

Michigan Law Review

ln a judicial proceeding, a question is asked of a witness, which question he declines to answer, claiming that the answer will tend to incriminate him. The judge orders him to answer. He does so and the answer does incriminate him. What happens?

Go to article

Effect Of Comment On Failure Of Defendant To Testify In Kentucky, Robert M. Spragens Jan 1943

Effect Of Comment On Failure Of Defendant To Testify In Kentucky, Robert M. Spragens

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Criminal Law And Procedure - New Trial - Motion For New Trial For Newly Discovered Evidence - Recantation By Important Witness For The State, Michigan Law Review May 1939

Criminal Law And Procedure - New Trial - Motion For New Trial For Newly Discovered Evidence - Recantation By Important Witness For The State, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

After conviction of rape allegedly committed upon defendant's thirteen year old daughter, defendant, on motion for new trial, produced an affidavit of the daughter recanting the testimony against defendant which the daughter had given at the trial. Held, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a new trial. Sutton v. State, (Ark. 1938) 122 S. W. (2d) 617.

Go to article

First Prev