can a grand jury witness be called to testify a second time for the same case?
438020
Yes, a grand jury merely decides whether there is enough evidence for an indictment and can be called again during the trial.
730136
First, Normabria (the person who attempted to answer) you do not understand the legal definition of hearsy. It has nothing to do with whether the speaker is present. The definition of hearsay is "an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted." Hearsay can exist even if all parties are present.\n\nAlso, Jon B, you are only partially correct. Rule 801 (d)(1) would apply only if witness 1's prior inconsistent statement took place in a deposition or some other official proceding, or was consistent with testimony and used to rebut fabrication or motive. In this case rule 801 (d)(1) is inapplicable. \n\n     Now to answer the question, you can trust me because I just took evidence last year.  You can't use 803 (3) because witness 1 did not express his state of mind, emotional, or physical condition. Did witness 1 testify to what he (witness 1) said? If so, the defendant can testify to what witness 1 said to show that witness 1 is lying. Presenting what witness 1 said in this manner would be okay because this would not be hearsay. It would not be offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, it would be offered to show that the witness is lying. In other words, the defense can't offer the testimony as proof that witness 1 was threatening him, as that would be hearsay. But the defense could testify as to what witness 1 said if the testimony helps to show that witness 1 was lying. \n\n     Remember a statement is only hearsay if its offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. If it is not offered for that purpose, than it is admissable. The problem with this question is that I don't know exactly what was said. Hearsay is a funny thing, the line between what is hearsay and what is not can be very thin. \n     Is the defendant invoking an affirmative defense such as "self defense" or something? Since I don't know specifics, its kind of hard to give a more definitive answer.
816658
You are to be a witness,  a grand jury will question you about what you know,  you are required to answer them unless you are involved in the crime you are testifing about.\n( and if they give you imunity, you are still required to testify)
908177
You have to testify if you get a subpoena; which is an official document issued by the Clerk of the Court.\nLetters do not count.
966255
Do you mean re-creating the crime scene for witnesses?\nThis would not be possible for the most part, as we would have no realistic idea of what sounds/odour were there at the time.  \nThe best option we have is interviewing witnesses as soon as possible after the fact so that information is fresh in their minds.   You are right though, sometimes a witness will leave out something that the investigator may not think to ask at the time.
956083
You are considered by law innocent unless you are convicted and found guilty.\n\nBut they can re-file when the witness can testify again
990804
Most of the time, it is not a great idea for the client to be on the stand because of cross-examination.  Especially if the client has anything shady in their past that could impact the trial, it is better to avoid taking the stand.  In some circumstances, a client who is articulate and believable might make a good witness.  Ohterwise, the risks far outweight any advantages.
64626
You can also contact the court that held the trial.  They will have the verdit for the case in question.  I have added a link to the circuit courts in West Virgina for your use.
387410
Unfortunately, no you cannot re-open such a case, not without new evidence. The best you can do is go after your lawyer, but it probably won't help a whole lot.  Very valuable lesson is to be learned here- you were so young when it happened- you body had many changes to go through yet and with Firestone's record, you should have had a clause put in the settlement (or not settled at all) that future consequences of the accident could be claimed.
153566
In most cases yes.. but there have been some people who have studied people that witness the same event and they all seem to see the facts differently.. You would definately have to determine if the witness was credible or not.
1005873
Yes, once you get a summons to go testify as a witness, you must go. That is disobeying court orders. Your work HAS to legally give you time off. And don't worry about him... just be honest and take it one step at a time. Good luck!
484103
One does not. Only a Law enforcement agency can initiate a Grand Jury Investigation. Your best bet is to contact your states attorney generals office or a local law enforcement agency.
49678
It depends.  I've been called 3 times in the past year.  The first time I asked for it to be postponed because I was planning my wedding.  The second time (the time I requested to be called) I never called, and my number was actually picked the first day so they called me and asked me why I wasn't there.  I told them I never received the letter, so I wasn't aware of the date & she asked me if I could come in the next day or if I required it to be postponed again.  I asked for it to be postponed and I received my jury summons last month and had to start calling sunday evening, and luckily my number was never called!  I guess if you evade long enough they will be a little more stern, but for the most part they were really nice to me & I'm glad I waited because I had a really high juror number this time!  Good Luck.
903960
Take me in front of a grand jury if you want me to answer.\n\nI'll tell them the same thing. I'm not going to answer hypothetical questions and I can't remember what I didn't know and I don't know when I didn't know it.
411765
Rules vary widely from area to area...but I would contact the jury duty people first chance to see if they can re-schedule you.
1166572
It would seem that double jeopardy would apply as stated in Black’s Law Dictionary, “Common-law and constitutional (Fifth Amendment) prohibition against a second prosecution after a first trial for the same offense.” (re: People v. Wheeler) “The evil sought to be avoided is double trial and double conviction, not necessarily double punishment.”  (re: Breed et al v. Jones) \n\nHowever, making such assumptions can sometimes result in an incorrect conclusion.  In part the Fifth Amendment states: “nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life of limb;”  The court’s interpretation(s) are interesting:\n\nBrantley v. Georgia [1910] “This clause also is a limitation upon the powers of the Federal Government, and is not a limitation on the States.”\n\nUnited States v. Oppenheimer [1916] “It was not intended to do away with the rule that judgment of acquittal on the ground of the bar of statute of limitations is a protection against a second trial.”\n\nThe cases most akin to the question asked are:\n\nBurton v. United State [1906] referring precedent to United States v. Randenbush [1834]; “A plea of former acquittal must be upon a prosecution for the same identical offense.”\n\nAnd,\n\nMorgan v. Devine [1915]; “The test of identity of offenses is whether the same evidence is required to sustain them; if not, then the fact that both charges relate to and grow out of the one transaction does not make a single offense where two are defined by statutes.”\n\nI suggest that the conviction for the first crime, although in error, was on presentment of different evidence than that for the second crime and therefore results in no “double jeopardy.”  I believe that the individual could be charged and legally convicted of the second killing simply because they are two different offenses.
893114
There is no way of making that call with our hearing all of the evidence.  It is up to the jury to determine if the evidence was enough to convict.  Generally you do not base this decision on just one piece of evidence, but a combination of everything presented by both sides.  If you feel that the prosecution did not prove their case, then you need to acquit, as everyone is to be considered Innocent until PROOVEN guilty.  I hope that if I am ever falsly accused, I have an intelligent jury deciding my case.