&quot;Right to silence&quot; for witnesses in Norwegian law I know that the Norwegian Criminal Procedures Code §90 gives a suspect the right to refrain from testifying against themselves. There's this Norwegian fictional story where a group of friends witness someone they know commit a crime. They are then called by the police to come testify regarding the incident. Since the accused is their friend, they don't want to contribute to him being convicted. I know that it's illegal to give false testimony in Norway, so to claim the accused didn't commit the crime would clearly be illegal. But would they have the right to say "I don't wish to comment"? Or simply refuse to show up at the questioning? (Since they themselves were not accused of any crime.) Is that legal in Norway? If not, what kind of punishment can be given for someone refusing to testify in a case where they themselves are not the accused or a family member of the accused, but rather their friend or something like that? What if the accused is a stranger and they simply don't wish to testify? Is there any difference in this regard between the right to silence during the initial police investigation and the right to silence during an actual trial in court? I prefer answers that cite their sources.
This appears to be covered by the Norway Criminal Procedures Code, of which an English version can be found here. Chapter 10 deals with witnesses. Here are some relevant sections: § 108. Unless otherwise provided by statute, every person summoned to attend as a witness is bound to do so and to give evidence before the court. There follow a number of exceptions (spousal privilege, attorney-client privilege, state secrets, etc). None of them seem to apply to your example. § 115. The court may decide that a witness who fails to attend or who leaves the place of sitting without a valid reason shall be brought before the same or a subsequent sitting of the court. In special cases the court may decide that a witness shall be detained in custody until he can be examined. § 128. Before the examination the president of the court shall admonish the witnesses to tell the whole truth without concealing anything. He shall inform the witnesses of the liability consequent on giving false evidence or making a false affirmation. § 137. If a witness refuses to give evidence after being ordered to do so by a legally enforceable court order, the court may by a new order decide that the witness shall be kept in custody until he fulfils his obligation. Nevertheless a witness may not be kept in custody for more than three months altogether in the same case or in another case relating to the same matter. So effectively, if the witness fails to show up voluntarily, he can be brought in forcibly. He can be ordered to testify, and if he refuses, he can be held in custody (probably a jail) for up to three months. However, the authority to compel testimony is limited to courts; the police cannot compel statements from witnesses. § 230. The police may take statements from suspected persons, witnesses and experts but may not order any person to make a statement. So in your example, it appears that the witnesses would be free to refuse to speak to the police. However, if the case came to trial, they could be ordered to testify, and could be held in custody if they refused.
In McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34, the Supreme Court declared that The privilege is not ordinarily dependent upon the nature of the proceeding in which the testimony is sought or is to be used. It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility him who gives it. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 It can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory, [Footnote 10] and it Page 406 U. S. 445 likewise finds that the privilege can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory, and it protects against any disclosures that the witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used. There may be some confusion over criminal vs. civil cases, so first we should restate the self-incrimination clause: nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself There are many ways that this language can be interpreted, for example it could mean that a person who is a criminal defendant cannot be compelled to testify against themselves in that case; or that the protection applies to a possible, future criminal case against them (when they are the defendant in a criminal trial); or when they are a non-defendant witness in some criminal trial. Instead, the courts interpret the privilege as protection against any being compelled to testify, when that testimony has a tendency to incriminate. The line that exists, w.r.t. civil cases, is that you can be compelled to testify against your civil case interest – you can be compelled to testify that you breached a contract, for example. When testifying in a criminal case, you can be compelled to testify to a breach of contract. It is not about the nature of the case where you are testifying, it is about the nature of the possible case where that testimony could be used against you.
The Sixth Amendment states that &quot;In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy... the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him&quot;. You are not being criminally prosecuted, so the Sixth Amendment simply does not apply. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause
Generally speaking, witnesses are not legally represented at trial, unless they are also parties. While a witness may choose to seek legal advice about a request or order they have received to give evidence, they would generally be expected to take this opportunity before they actually show up at trial. A witness examination would not normally be adjourned because a witness said something damaging to their own credibility or to one party’s case, and would like to pause and obtain legal advice. One goal of cross-examination is to expose unreliable evidence by obtaining this kind of tactical advantage over a witness. It is up to the party whose case was damaged to try to fix the problem in re-examination or reply evidence. That party may not be particularly interested in protecting the witness’s personal interests. There may be exceptions in specific factual situations, when it becomes clear that a witness does not understand their right to object to giving evidence on the grounds of self-incrimination or some other privilege. A judge may choose to halt further questioning of the witness if there is a real risk of a mistrial or some other procedural unfairness, which can be addressed without unfairly depriving the cross-examiner of their opportunity to challenge the evidence.
The Criminal Code says: (1) A person commits an assault when (a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly Touching is applying force, even if it is slight. The law also says (same section) that apparent consent evidenced by submission isn't actually consent: (3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of (a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant; (b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant; (c) fraud; or (d) the exercise of authority. This pretty much means that consent is always required. If you are wrong about there having been consent and you end up being charged, you can explain why you thought there was consent, and the judge may find the story sufficiently plausible that you can use that as a defence, because: 4) Where an accused alleges that he believed that the complainant consented to the conduct that is the subject-matter of the charge, a judge, if satisfied that there is sufficient evidence and that, if believed by the jury, the evidence would constitute a defence, shall instruct the jury, when reviewing all the evidence relating to the determination of the honesty of the accused's belief, to consider the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for that belief. Here is a model jury instruction pertaining to consent Third – Did (NOC) consent to the force that (NOA) applied? To decide whether (NOC) consented to the physical contact, you must consider (NOC)’s state of mind. Consider all the evidence, including the circumstances surrounding (NOA)’s physical contact with (NOC), to decide whether (NOC) consented to it. Take into account any words or gestures, whether by (NOA) or (NOC), and any other indication of (NOC)’s state of mind at the time. Just because (NOC) submitted or did not resist does not mean that (NOC) consented to what (NOA) did. Consent requires (NOC)’s voluntary agreement, without the influence of force, threats, fear, fraud or abuse of authority, to let the physical contact occur. The instruction pertaining to the "honest but mistaken belief in consent" defence goes like this: (NOA)’s position is that s/he was unaware that (NOC) did not consent. In fact, it is his/her position that s/he honestly believed that (NOC) consented to the physical contact in question. A belief is a state of mind, in this case, (NOA)’s state of mind. To determine whether (NOA) honestly believed that (NOC) consented to the physical contact in question, you should consider all the circumstances surrounding that activity. Take into account any words or gestures, whether by (NOA) or (NOC), and any other indication of (NOA)’s state of mind at the time. (NOA)’s belief that (NOC) consented to the physical contact must be an honest belief, but it does not have to be reasonable. However, you must consider whether there were reasonable grounds for (NOA)’s belief; the presence or absence of reasonable grounds may help you decide whether (NOA)’s belief was honest. Look at all the circumstances in deciding this issue. Do not focus on only one and ignore the rest. You must consider all the evidence, including anything said or done in the circumstances. Use common sense. (NOA) does not have to prove that s/he honestly believed that (NOC) consented to the physical contact. Rather, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (NOA) had no such belief. In other words, if the story is believable, the jury might believe it. Asking for each and every kind of contact can be annoying and a little silly, but if you might be at risk, better silly than sorry.
The Legal Answer: An officer's job is to turn over all evidence to the State's attorney and testify at trial truthfully. It is the State's attorney's job to turn over all evidence in discovery to the defense; to only prosecute people they believe are guilty or likely guilty; and to remedy clear and convincing false prosecutions as outlined in ABA rule 3.8 which is echoed in many state laws. Rule 3.8: The prosecutor in a criminal case shall: (a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;... ...(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal;... ..(h) When a prosecutor knows of clear and convincing evidence establishing that a defendant in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit, the prosecutor shall seek to remedy the conviction. If this new exonerating evidence is turned over to the prosecutor they would be required to submit it to the defense and the trial would likely be postponed for both sides to evaluate the new evidence. If they suppress the evidence it would be grounds for appeal and disbarment of the prosecuting attorney. It is not the officer's job to direct the trial, just supply evidence that supports the truth. But it also wouldn't help if the State's own witness suddenly started offering testimony contrary to supporting guilt and in light of new evidence the prosecution may reevaluate to not have this happen. The Ethical Answer: Kind of sticky going into ethics and the exact right response to this situation, but it sounds like the answer you want. Assuming an ethical prosecutor the this would be the same as the legal answer. If this is not the case and the officer reasonably believes evidence will be suppressed, they could turn over evidence to both parties directly or to the prosecution and make the defense aware that he submitted evidence. He could also notify the state bar association of the suppression by the prosecution should that happen. Of course these actions may be at peril to their job as an officer despite whistle blower protections, but if ethics were easy, people wouldn't have to talk about them so much.
I haven't found a recent case like this where it constitutes evidence. Military members didn't have an express right to remain silent until somewhere in the 1950s, so one chances are there might be cases prior to that point. The present right is codified in 10 U.S.C. 831, which is Article 31 of the UCMJ. That said, there is certainly a well documented adverse inference effect. While jurors aren't supposed to take the silence into account (e.g. when a defendant elects not to testify or exercises a right against self-incrimination), it's a difficult thing to do, practically speaking.
can really anyone in Germany call the police on others without proof of anything? Anyone anywhere can call the police without proof of anything as long as they have a phone. The question is, what will the police do about it. Police in Germany are more professional and less corrupt than in many countries in the world (e.g. they are much less corrupt than police in much of the United States or police in Southern Italy or Mexico, or in much of the &quot;third-world&quot;). Most German police are unlikely to exercise their power unless they are genuinely deceived into thinking that you committed an actual crime. But, German cops are human too. Some German cops are bad cops and even good cops aren't perfect truth detectors or bias free. and if so what are my rights? There has to be some evidence to arrest you or prosecute you, but testimony from people who claim to be eye witnesses is a form of evidence and proof. People are routinely convicted of crimes (everywhere in the world) based solely upon the testimony of other people with no additional proof. This is usually a good rule. As a society we don't want the criminal justice system to let people who commit crimes that are witnessed by lots of truthful witnesses and testified to, to go free just because there is no non-testimonial evidence. But because people lie (or are simply mistaken about the truth) sometimes, it isn't a perfect way of determining who is guilty and who is innocent. You also have the right to lodge a complaint of criminal defamation with the police in Germany and in Germany hundreds of thousands of such cases are prosecuted by police every year. Making false accusations against you (or even just insulting you in an extremely offense manner) as they did is a minor crime in Germany. and the person I mentioned had 2 of his employees with him but I am sure and I know for a fact they are on his side and I had no witnesses with me so how can I prove I am innocent? if they agreed on making up a story against me? The possibility that people will be wrongfully arrested and wrongfully convicted of crimes because people lie and authorities believe the people who are lying is a constant risk. The best you can do is to tell your story consistently and honestly and hope that you are believed. But it is impossible to eliminate the risk that people will lie and be believed and that you will suffer the consequences, even if you are doing everything right. In the long run, you may want to avoid people who you think would lie and make false accusations around you, and to have the presence of either friendly witnesses and/or audio/visual recording at times when you are in their presence. You may also, as a long run strategy try to figure out if there was anything you could have done to prevent them from being out to get you so badly that they would make false accusations against you. While I don't want to blame the victim, and often enough, especially for example, if you are a foreigner or otherwise different in a homogeneous community some people are doing to hate you for no reason, sometimes their real motivation may be a failure to follow social norms that are not actually illegal, or a misunderstand that could be cleared up.