Is it required for a defendant to be in court? Say that Nathan is on trial for 100 murder charges. He already knows his life is over, so every time they bring him into court, he starts screaming expletives out of turn. They charge him 1000 times over for contempt of court. But even if they gag him, he can still flop around like a fish out of water whenever they bring him into court. Basically, no matter what they do short of torture/violence, Nathan will find some way to be a nuisance in court. Is it at all possible to conduct his trial/sentencing without him present whatsoever? Or is it required that he be present in court at some point, and they just have to carry on through his antics?
They have a right to be present but can be removed under Illinois v. Allen While in general, a person has a right to be present for the trial and conviction hearing, they can be removed if they disturb the orderly process. SCOTUS also offers to have him fined again and again (only works if the accused is not judgment proof) or to gag and bind an unruly defendant. Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970) Syllabus Respondent, who was on trial for robbery, was removed from the courtroom for repeated disruptive behavior and the use of vile and abusive language directed at the trial judge, notwithstanding the judge's prior warning that removal would follow another outburst. Appointed counsel represented respondent during the period respondent was not allowed in the courtroom, principally the presentation of the State's case. Having given some assurances of good conduct, respondent was allowed to return to the courtroom while appointed counsel presented his defense. Respondent was convicted. Following the State Supreme Court's affirmance, respondent filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court, contending that he had been deprived of his right under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to confront the witnesses against him. The District Court declined to issue the writ. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to attend his own trial was so &quot;absolute&quot; that, regardless of how unruly his conduct, he could never be held to have lost that right so long as he insisted on it, as respondent had. Held: A defendant can lose his right to be present at trial if, following the judge's warning that he will be removed if his disruptive behavior continues, he nevertheless insists on conducting himself in such a disruptive manner that his trial cannot proceed if he remains in the courtroom. He can reclaim the right to be present as soon as he is willing to comport himself with decorum and respect. Pp. 397 U. S. 342-343. A trial judge confronted by a defendant's disruptive conduct can exercise discretion to meet the circumstances of the case, and though no single formula is best for all situations, there are at least three constitutionally permissible approaches for the court's handling of an obstreperous defendant: (1) bind and gag him as a last resort, thereby keeping him present; (2) cite him for criminal or civil contempt; or (3) remove him from the courtroom, while the trial continues, until he promises to conduct himself properly. Pp. 397 U. S. 343-346. On the facts of this case, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion, respondent, through his disruptive behavior, having lost his right to confrontation under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 397 U. S. 345-347. Example of removal in action: The Darrell Brooks case As a rather public example, this happened during the Darrell Brooks trial, multiple times: there's abouht 9:12 hours and 6:15 hours of sentencing hearing in this case, including breaks, split between two days. On the 2nd day, the judge starts the actual sentencing by elaborating on how she understands the case at about 3:11:45. If you look up the transcript, keep in mind that the local time at the start of the video was about 12:50, ten minutes to 1 PM. At 3:44:20, Mr. Brooks starts to speak up and interrupt the judge, receiving in quick succession multiple warnings that he will be removed if he doesn't stop. After 40 seconds, the order to remove him from the courtroom is given. The hearing resumes at around the 3:49:50 mark, Mr. Brooks now in a separate courtroom. The judge elaborates that Mr. Brooks has a right to be present, and also why he can be removed under Illinois v. Allen. There is more elaboration on this topic till Mr. Brooks is muted at about the timestamp 3:53:00, because he is unwilling to do the required pledge to reclaim the right to be present under that case. More explanation about it follows that the judge wants the pledge in writing at that point. The reading of sentencing factors only resumes at around the 3:55:00 mark. Mr. Brooks writes something at about 3:57:00, and the paper is given to the judge at 3:59:19, ruling that whatever is on the sheet is not a pledge and thus he stays removed at 3:59:25. For some hour Mr. Brooks waves papers at the camera, writing another note to the Judge at starting about 4:41:00, before resuming waving with the new note at about 4:43:20 and showing his statement to the camera at 4:55:52. Sadly the quality is not good enough to read the letters, and not even the judge can read it at 5:57:00 - re-iterating that unless it is a pledge to stay quiet, he's not coming back. The prosecution manages to make out the top word as Objection at 4:57:20 and shortly after it is ordered that he may return with the sign, but if he so much as speaks up, he will forfeit his right to be present. Court resumes at about 5:03:20, corresponding to 4:53 in the courtroom. Mr. Brooks is instructed that he can only stay in the courtroom if he is to waive his right &quot;to do so&quot;, and that if he doesn't behave he'd be removed again and told to sit down. Instead, Mr. Brooks starts rambling about subject matter jurisdiction at 3:04:00. Told once more to sit down, this transpires: Mr. Brooks: &quot;I'd like to go back to the other court room.&quot; Judge: &quot;It's not a courtesy to you. If you like to specifically waive your right to be physically present, then I will entertain that. Otherwise, you need to sit down.&quot; Mr. Brooks: [something unintelligible] &quot;I never waived a right to not be present&quot; [more unintelligible] Judge: &quot;That's because you forfeited your right to be present by conduct. You're now back in this courtroom. Mr. Brooks: &quot;Your honor I wrote three... I did what you asked me to do...&quot; Judge: &quot;You never once pledged to me sir, that you would not interrupt, and you're demonstrating by being here that you will continue to interrupt. Mr. Brooks [something to the effect that the judge told the bailiff that the pledge had to be in writing] Judge: &quot;Mr. Brooks, this is not a debate. You asked to come over here and I honored that, and I brought you back. Mr Brooks [Interrupts, the words My Right are understandable.] &quot;three times. I shouldn't have to do it three times!&quot; Judge: &quot;None of the opportunities you wrote to me said *I pledge to not interrupt.&quot; Mr. Brooks [Interrupts] &quot;I never had to do that before! You've never required that before!&quot; Judge: That is actually not true sir. Mr Brooks [argues that he'd never been required to pledge like that before in trial] Judge: Mr Brooks, You were just simply trying to delay the inevitable, please sit down. Mr. Brooks continues to argue and stand up, despite now being told to sit down and be quiet for the 3rd time since returning to the courtroom. A 4th order to &quot;please sit down&quot; is issued at about 5:05:35 and two more within about 20 seconds later. Mr. Brooks rants and complains about being removed in the first place and that he'd want to exercise his right to be present. The Judge finally re-iterates at 5:03:40 that the reason he was brought back was not because he had complied with the request to pledge not to interrupt, but because the next portion is very important. Mr Brooks doesn't sit down and argue. At 5:08:00 the judge clarifies that he &quot;did not reclaim his right to be present&quot; (which was forfeited back at timestamp 3:44:20!). A minute later, the judge orders him directly - with a warning that this is a direct court order and not doing what is told is contempt of court: Judge: Sit down and be quiet, so I can make the appropriate record. Mr Brooks [dispnbeys] Judge: All right, he's not going to obey, he has now forfeited his right to be present He will go into the other court room. We are in recess until he's there. 5:09:25 -The camera pans to the clock showing 4:59:20 Around timestamp 5:13:20 trial resumes, and the judge once more reiterates that and how the court deems Mr. Brooks having forfeited the right to be present for about two minutes. His sign that he objects to the other room and wants to return is ignored, even as he parades it around. Sentencing continues without him. The sentences are read starting timestamp 5:55:20 - no further interruption happens.
Only if counsel challenged the point during the trial Difficult as it might be, you can’t allow the judge to be wrong during the trial without calling them on it: very, very politely. For example, there is case law that says you can’t successfully appeal because the judge was asleep through significant parts of the trial; appeals courts are clear that you have to wake them up. If you don’t then you accepted that you didn’t want the judge to hear the parts of the case they slept through, it’s your choice how you present your case. Frankly some cases are better if the judge misses half the evidence. Of course, if the error of law makes it through to the oral or written judgement then you can appeal even if you didn’t take issue with it.
In many jurisdictions, there is a "witness fee" that one is required to pay, as a token recognition of the value of a person's time. Fact witnesses can often be obligated to appear and testify, for minimal compensation, but not against themselves. In federal cases, Rule 17(b) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure permit the defendant to apply to ask the government to pay the witness fee if they cannot afford it and the presence of the witness is necessary for an adequate defense. The other side of a case (in this example, the prosecutor) could try to impeach the witness's testimony (i.e. make him seem less credible in the eyes of the jury) by demonstrating that the witness is a "professional witness" (i.e. fees from saying things in court are a major part of the witness's regular income). That doesn't seem to apply to the facts you've listed, where the witness just happened to be in that place and time to observe what happened and (assuming for this question) accurately testified as to what he saw. Personally paying the police officer or judge for a favorable result is a different question with a different answer.
There are several elements working in your friend's favor. The first is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." In an entrapment case, the police have recordings or documents claiming that the "girl" was underaged. If there is no such smoking gun from the (real) girl, the case (probably) would not be prosecuted in the U.S. He doesn't have to prove that she told him she was 18; "she" (or the police) has to prove that she told him she was "not." The second factor is "remoteness" in time, and distance. Two years after a U.S. state sent me a "nasty letter," I asked my lawyer if the state would ever come after me. He answered, "If they were going to do this, you would have heard further by now." The other factor, distance and cross border, (three countries: Turkey, the U.S., his home country) further militates against prosecution except for highly aggravating circumstances such as drug dealing, gambling, or sex for pay. A third factor is that your friend would not come close to qualifying as a "serious offender." This would be someone like a drug dealer, or the head of a "call girl" ring. The cops concentrate their effects on big "busts" like this that make their careers, not "small fry" like your friend. But of course they use the publicity from the big catches to scare everyone else. While there is no "guarantee" against "the worst possible consequences," the chances of them happening are similar to his getting hit by lightening, and less than his chances of being hit by a car crossing the street. No one stresses out about those chances. He shouldn't either. I am not a lawyer but I have done paralegal work in a law office.
Yes, you may call a defendant as a witness and compel the defendant to testify in a civil case. If you need this testimony to prove your case, you should have the clerk issue a subpoena for trial to the defendant and have that subpoena personally served by a process server upon that defendant (sometimes a witness fee, a mileage allowance, and a copy of the relevant statute must also be included in the package). There should be a standard court form available to do this. The subpoena to appear and testify at trial must be delivered to the defendant by the process server a certain amount of time in advance (usually two days, but court rules vary). Also, when you call a defendant as a witness you may generally examine the witness with leading questions, which is something that you are not usually allowed to do with witnesses that you call in your own case. Forcing a defendant to testify to the indisputable facts is a good way to meet your burden of proof towards establishing those facts. But, when you call a defendant as a witness, you should limit your questions to those you know the answer to and can ideally prove with other evidence if the defendant lies. Don't try to tell the entire story of the case with the defendant, just the undisputed facts. The one narrow exception to this would be a criminal contempt of court proceeding (i.e. one seeking the remedy of throwing the offending party in jail where there is no way to obtain relief by taking the action requested) prosecuted by a party within a civil case, to which 5th Amendment protections would apply. But, this would not apply to the kind of case described in the original post.
As mentioned in a comment by @Dancrumb, the exact policies of each local police department will be different, and there are thousands of them. There is a relevant requirement at the Federal level according the Department of Justice, but it is not clear to me to what extent this applies to peers and not just supervisors: An officer who purposefully allows a fellow officer to violate a victim's Constitutional rights may be prosecuted for failure to intervene to stop the Constitutional violation. To prosecute such an officer, the government must show that the defendant officer was aware of the Constitutional violation, had an opportunity to intervene, and chose not to do so. This charge is often appropriate for supervisory officers who observe uses of excessive force without stopping them, or who actively encourage uses of excessive force but do not directly participate in them.
So, as you say, these witnesses who try to help their buddy out may be committing perjury. Also, D himself, by lining this up, is probably on the hook for conspiracy to commit perjury and being complicit in perjury. Aside from that, I think your question is: would getting people to testify in a way that implies they did the crime lead to an acquittal for the murderer? The answer is: maybe. The jury will either vote to acquit or to convict. If the jury votes to acquit, then it's over. Double jeopardy protects D from being tried for murder again. But, if the jury votes to convict, the fact that D had his friends testifying in the way you suggest isn't going to get the conviction overturned on appeal because &quot;a reviewing court resolves neither credibility issues nor evidentiary conflicts.&quot; People v. Young, 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181 (Cal. 2005). I haven't done a trial yet, but it strikes me that that might not be the greatest trial strategy. I think generally defense lawyers would prefer to make their client look the furthest thing from gang affiliated as possible. Don't lie to a court or ask anyone to lie to a court for you.
The title asks about double jeopardy, but the the body seems to be asking about statute of limitations, which is a separate issue. If an argument regarding timeliness is made by John, it likely will not be based on a statute of limitations. If Jane is asking for a restraining order, she will have to show a high likelihood of harm. If further actions have occurred recently, then any statute of limitations would not apply. If four years have gone by without any further actions by John, then Jane is unlikely to convince a judge that harm is imminent. Restraining orders are not supposed to be punitive, but preventative, thus the concept of statutes of limitations generally does not apply; as they are supposed to be used to prevent imminent harm, only the current situation is considered. Long-past actions are relevant only as to interpretation of current facts. One does not get a restraining order "for" violent acts done against one; one gets a restraining order to prevent future acts, and uses previous violent acts as evidence of the likelihood of those acts. Asking a court to protect oneself from someone who has not been in one's life for four years is unlikely to go over well.