Intimidating a witness kentucky best online dating site nyc
KRS 421.110 states that "[d]isobedience of a subpoena . When weighed against the possible relevancy of the testimony regarding the victim’s past aggressive behavior toward family members other than John, the delay caused by the exercise of the court’s contempt power justified its refusal. Ed.2d 330 (1972) (holding that a trial judge’s badgering of sole defense witness which included threatening him with prosecution for perjury causing him not to testify constituted reversible error); United States v. Moreover, we “must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding that does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” Id. The exception to this general principle is structural error, that is, errors “which are, per se, reversible because they undermine the fundamental legitimacy of the judicial process.” Id. “In such cases, the error ‘necessarily render[s] a criminal trial fundamentally unfair or an unreliable vehicle for determining guilt or innocence.’ ” Washington v. The court ruled pursuant to Before discussing the trial status of Delcie’s testimony it may be well to recall a bit of the history of the law of evidence as discussed in Wigmore, Sections 575, 576 and, particularly, in Section 579 so far as an accused in a criminal case is concerned.The family court also denied John’s request to compel Josefina’s psychiatrist to provide her medical and pharmacy records. “Virtually all errors, therefore, are subject to harmless error analysis.” Crossland v. Because they were supposed to be so interested that their testimony would be untrustworthy, the parties to litigation in both civil and criminal cases originally were not permitted to testify.All this for a two or three second statement attesting to the authenticity of the already certified records.
However, the motions were improperly noticed and not heard by the court. Such a proviso still governs in Kentucky, KRS 421.225 (Section 1646 Carrolls, adopted in 1893).Because we believe Flag Drilling’s reliance on KRS 134.420(1) is proper and that it should have recovered reasonable attorney’s fees, we reverse, in part, and remand. judicial behavior aimed at dissuading the defendant himself—not merely his witnesses—from testifying would surely offend his statutory and constitutional rights.”)..In 1990 Erco, a Kentucky corporation, became the owner of 122 acres in Christian County that it used primarily for oil and gas production. Certainly, all of the attendant circumstances should be considered.See KRS 421.015 (providing that out-of-county witnesses are allowed travel reimbursement at the level allowed for state employees); KRS 421.030 (governing expenses for witnesses on behalf of the Commonwealth who reside outside Kentucky).A Commonwealth’s witness in a felony case who resides in another state shall be allowed his necessary expenses in addition to the per diem, but no such allowance shall be made unless the judge of the court has made an order based upon the personal knowledge of the Circuit Judge or upon information showing that the testimony of the witness is material to the state, requiring the attendance of the witness.
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.