Correctly advising the defendant about the consequences of testifying is not an impermissible chilling of the defendant’s right to testify. The trial judge should not, by statements, rulings, or conduct, impermissibly “chill” (that is, influence and deter) the defendant’s right to testify. “Chilling” the Defendant’s Decision to Testify.460 (1985) (finding no denial of the right to testify because defendant did not indicate to the judge that he wished to testify). Unlike other waivers of constitutional rights, however, the trial judge is not required to inform a defendant of his or her right to testify or to make an inquiry on the record to determine whether his or her waiver is knowing and voluntary. 644 (1983), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 311 N.C. 667 (1984).Ī defendant may waive the constitutional right to testify as long as the waiver is knowing and voluntary. If the defendant chooses to testify, the trial judge is not required to instruct the jury, on request or otherwise, that the defendant cannot be compelled to testify. 301 (1984) (counsel can advise defendant not to testify, but the ultimate decision belongs to the defendant). “he decision whether to testify is a substantial right belonging to the defendant.” State v. 8-54 (Defendant competent but not compelled to testify). This means the defendant is subject to cross-examination and impeachment, just like any other witness. 8-54, which provides that a criminal defendant is “at his own request, but not otherwise, a competent witness.” If a defendant does decide to testify, he or she will be treated the same as any other witness and thereby subjects himself or herself “‘to all the disadvantages of that position.’” State v. Of course, the defendant’s right to choose to testify does not mean the defendant may be compelled to testify in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This right is now accepted to be an inherent part of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment. ![]() The defendant also has a constitutional right to take the witness stand and to testify in his or her own defense. If the defendant’s constitutional right to confrontation is violated, the state bears the burden of showing that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The denial of a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him or her is subject to harmless error analysis. 14 (1974) (right to confront waived by defense counsel’s stipulation in open court that the SBI chemist’s testimony could be taken, both on direct and cross-examination, on the day preceding the trial and then read to the jury at the trial by the court reporter). This right may be waived by the defendant or by defense counsel acting on behalf of the defendant. 580 (1985) (by failing to request that a witness be recalled, defendant waived his right to confront her about written note entered into evidence by the state after the witness had testified and left the courthouse). The right to be confronted by witnesses may be waived, even in a capital case, by the defendant either by express consent or by a failure to assert the right in apt time. The court “has repeatedly held that the right to confront is an affirmance of the rule of the common law that in criminal trials by jury the witness must not only be present, but must be subject to cross-examination under oath.” State v. ![]() 230 (1954) The North Carolina Supreme Court “has generally construed the right to confrontation under our state constitution consistent with the federal provision.” State v. It also guarantees the defendant a fair opportunity to prepare and present his or her defense. Constitution has a guarantee of the right to confrontation similar to that set out in the Sixth Amendment. ![]() In addition, Article I, section 23 of the N.C. ![]() A criminal defendant is provided two types of protection under the Confrontation Clause: “the right physically to face those who testify against him, and the right to conduct cross-examination.” Pennsylvania v. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees a defendant the right to confront the witnesses against him or her. For additional analysis of Crawford and confrontation issues which may arise in cases involving child victims (including remote testimony and the use of non-testimonial statements), see “ Evidence Issues in Criminal Cases Involving Child Victims and Child Witnesses,” Administration of Justice Bulletin, Jessica Smith, December 2008. Washington line of cases, see the related entry on Expert Testimony – Crawford, Substitute Analysts, and Remote Testimony. For a more in-depth discussion of confrontation issues under the Crawford v. This entry only addresses the defendant’s basic rights to appear in court and confront the witnesses against him or her.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |