No, it really has nothing to do with the job she was hired for. If you are subpoenaed as a witness, you have to testify. Even if she had nothing to do with the defense work but could reasonably have useful testimony then she would still be required to show up regardless of her feelings on the death penalty.
Absolutely–and I’d support a law that says that you may not be subpoenaed for information you learned specifically while working on behalf of a defense attorney, as a very reasonable extension of lawyer-client privilege. I could even maybe see a judge deciding that the attorney-client privilege extended in this case (although I’m not wedded to this position and can easily imagine someone providing a cite showing why that’d be a faulty ruling).
But I don’t think religion is a good basis for such a decision.
Too bad for her if she thought being an investigator for the defense meant she would only ever have to testify for the defense and not answer any questions from the prosecution. Hold her in contempt until she complies or the prosecution decides it doesn’t need or want her testimony any more.
I can sort of answer this question, at least. One of the issues in the case is whether the defendant was inadequately represented by his defense team. The government wants her to testify to demonstrate that her work on his behalf was sufficiently competent.
As a general rule, when you assert ineffective assistance of counsel, you waive privilege for your communications with the allegedly ineffective attorneys (and their staffs).
Agreed. She should not be forced to bake a cake for a death penalty celebration.
Maybe she could just mix the cake and Ray can hold the pan on his lap when they give him the chair.
Huh. That’s interesting. It is in her interests, then, to appear incompetent; she worries that by testifying, she’ll show herself sufficiently competent at defending him that she’ll fail to defend him.
That’s gotta be the best Catch-22 I’ve ever seen in real life.
The religion aspect seems to be a side issue here.
I’d say the important part is that she was part of the defense team. Not an actual lawyer, but involved. I’d say that ought to be enough to get the lawyer-client privilege to cover this. If courts interpreted this privilege so narrowly as to only apply to the lawyer, it might be easy to get around it. The prosecution can’t get testimony from the defense lawyer, so they subpoena the stenographer who took shorthand notes of their conversation? Or subpoena the typist who transcribed those notes? Unless the confidentiality extends to everyone on the defense team, it could become meaningless.
Except that, as I understand it, she testified in the original trial. At that time she was subject to cross-examination by the prosecution and required to answer truthfully. She should expect that to still hold in the appeal. In case it’s not evident, everything I know about the law I learned from Jack McCoy.
Do you mind saying how you gained that understanding?
God commanded that people not murder; not kill.
Eh, I’d say this guy disagrees. And I’m pretty sure he’s a Christian, although of a rather small branch.
:dubious:
Flyer, have you ever worn a shirt that’s a cotton-polyester blend? If so, how can you call yourself a Christian?
Nope. And not a tenet either.
I think if you choose a career as an investigator for a defense attorney, that comes with the territory. She should have made that part of her condition of employment - if she’s really good, maybe she still would have been hired. Or she should move to a state where they don’t have the death penalty if she wants to practice as a criminal investigator.
This looks like obstruction to me.
It could be argued that polyester isn’t really a fabric. 
Flyer’s odd beliefs regarding religious beliefs is irrelevant to the thread. Please refrain from promoting a hijack in opposition to or defense of his claims.
[ /Moderating ]
Why does her written report not suffice?
Because she’s been called to testify by the prosecution.
If you mean why did they call her, I assume they want to ask how she conducted her investigation.
Hmm…what ever happened to “Thou shalt not bear false witness?”