Compelling A Witness To Speak: How?

[Lemur866]

Also, if asked “how were you persuaded to testify” the obvious answer is that the witness was subpoenaed. That means they are obligated to testify. That doesn’t mean they can be compelled to testify a certain way, but they can certainly be compelled to testify under penalty of criminal contempt, and they can be compelled to testify truthfully under penalty of perjury.

[Bricker]

@md2000

In fact, false arrest and threats would be counterproductive.
“So, Mr. Jones, you told the police you saw my client walk by covered in blood holding a knife?”
“Yes.”
“What did the police say to you before you told them this?”
“They said if I didn’t say that, they’d throw me in a cell with Bubba and he’d cornhole me twice a day…”

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Nitpick: that line of questioning, from a prosecutor to a prosecution witness, is impermissible leading of the witness.

I think that’s the defense impeaching the prosecution witness.

But that second sentence assumes facts not in evidence. Better habit: “What, if anything, did the police say to you before you told them this?”

[md2000]

@Bricker

I think that’s the defense impeaching the prosecution witness.

But that second sentence assumes facts not in evidence. Better habit: “What, if anything, did the police say to you before you told them this?”

Thanks. I assume that a defense attorney can ask the prosecution witness what the circumstances were that led to their testimony - whether they were a paid informant, for example; or the TV classic, promised a lighter sentence in another charge in return for testimony; or if they were threatened with consequences if they did not tell the police something.

[Bricker]

@md2000

Thanks. I assume that a defense attorney can ask the prosecution witness what the circumstances were that led to their testimony - whether they were a paid informant, for example; or the TV classic, promised a lighter sentence in another charge in return for testimony; or if they were threatened with consequences if they did not tell the police something.

Absolutely. The finder of fact is entitled to consider the bias the witness might have.

[igor_frankensteen]

@HeyHomie

I guess what I don’t understand here is how/why the court can build a bridge (so to speak) from “victim’s dad thinks X knows something” to “X should go to jail if he doesn’t talk.” Maybe X truly doesn’t know anything? Maybe X knows something but doing so would drag the victim’s name through the mud and he wants to spare her family the gory details (like, say, the girl is blackmailing the teacher, or something).

This is just a really weird situation and I can’t make sense of it.

I think you are making a jump here that you aren’t aware of.

The court CAN compel someone to testify, but they can’t compel them to satisfy the suspicions of someone else.

In addition, unless the father is a member of the courts, THEY can’t compel anyone, including they can’t compel the judge to compel someone else’s testimony.

As for WHY someone might not happen to WANT to tell what they know, that has been fairly well covered by others. In a way, it is again a matter of who has legal authority. Unless you are a member of the court, you don’t have the legal authority or the right to make up your own mind, what does or does not amount to just cause for refusing to cooperate.

The fact that everyone might fully sympathize with your reasons for not wanting to talk, has nothing to do with the mechanisms of the law.

[Lemur866]

And also note that there’s no way a legal case would look like:

1. The cops think Jimmy the Weasel knows Paulie killed Big Tony
2. The prosecution charges Paulie, based on that.
3. Paulie goes to trial
4. The prosecution subpoenas Jimmy to testify against Paulie, because without that eyewitness testimony they don’t have a case.
5. The bailiff drags Jimmy to court.
6. Jimmy gets to the stand and the prosecutor says, “You were there on the night Tony was killed, what did you see”?
7. And Jimmy, knowing that he faces perjury charges if he lies, has to testify that he saw Paulie kill Tony.

This case would never happen. And the prosecutor would never put Jimmy on the stand unless he knows what Jimmy’s testimony is going to be.

Sure, Jimmy can be compelled to testify. They can drag him into court under penatly of contempt, and put him on the stand, and administer the oath, and have him testify under penalty of perjury.

Except what happens when Jimmy says “I dint see nuttin.”? Charge him with perjury? How can you prove that Jimmy saw Paulie whack Tony during a perjury trial? It’s pretty much impossible. It won’t happen. Having a witness for the prosecution sabotage the case is your worst nightmare, because the defense just has to establish reasonable doubt.

And besides, if your evidence is “Jimmy saw Paulie do it”, you can’t even charge Paulie for the crime unless you’ve already got Jimmy telling the cops that Paulie did it. You can’t charge Paulie because you believe at the trial that Jimmy might testify, you have to have more than “Let’s charge Paulie and see if some evidence against him magically emerges during the trial”.