Can a defendant be denied a fair trial if the prosecution's case depends substantially on the testimony of an accomplice?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Maury, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 561, 30 Cal.4th 342, 68 P.3d 1 (Cal. 2003):
"`"[A] defendant is denied a fair trial if the prosecution's case depends substantially on accomplice testimony and the accomplice witness is placed, either by the prosecution or the court, under a
[133 Cal.Rptr.2d 626]
strong compulsion to testify in a particular fashion." [Citation.] Thus, when the accomplice is granted immunity subject to the condition that his testimony substantially conform to an earlier statement given to police [citation], or that his testimony result in defendant's conviction [citation], the accomplice's testimony is "tainted beyond redemption" [citation] and its admission denies defendant a fair trial. On the other hand, although there is a certain degree of compulsion inherent in any plea agreement or grant of immunity, it is clear that an agreement requiring only that the witness testify fully and truthfully is valid.' (Fn.omitted.)" (People v. Padgett (1995) 10 Cal.4th 330, 358, 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 635, 895 P.2d 877.)[133 Cal.Rptr.2d 626]
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
Is a defendant denied a fair trial if the prosecution's case depends substantially upon the testimony of his or her accomplice? (California, United States of America)
When an accomplice is called as a witness by the prosecution, is the jury required to distrust the testimony of their accomplice's testimony? (California, United States of America)
When a defendant makes a mid-trial motion to revoke his self represented status and have standby counsel appointed for the remainder of the trial, does the trial court have a duty to manage the trial? (California, United States of America)
Is a defendant's claim that the trial court's failure to provide him with the means and subpoena witnesses to defend at trial a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to represent himself at trial reversible? (California, United States of America)
Does the trial court abuse its discretion when it denied a defendant's motion to exclude the testimony of Page 35 of the Defendant's lawyer as more prejudicial than probative? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for a defendant's claim that he was denied his constitutional right to due process of law because the trial court relieved the prosecution of its burden of establishing that defendant acted with malice? (California, United States of America)
Does a motion for a new trial need to be denied because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial? (California, United States of America)
When will a jury consider the credibility of a defendant's extrajudicial statements against trial testimony and the physical evidence and testimony of witnesses? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for denying a motion for a new trial on the grounds that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion under the first two grounds? (California, United States of America)
Can a defendant obtain a new trial on the grounds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion to deny the motion on the same grounds as the previous motion? (California, United States of America)
