Called as witness

[AmBe0241]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Massachusetts. I have two friends whom are married to each other. Both were invloved in financially taking advantage of her mother and father. Both elderly and retired. They told me what they had done and I counseled them to tell the parents. Now the parents have filed charges with the BBO as the husband is an attorney. The husband wants to call me as a witness that the wife (thier divorce is iminent) was the one who primarily decieved her parents. I do not want to testify since they are both friends.

Q: Do I have the right to refuse to testify?
Q: Can the D.A. press charges against me because I knew of the crime after the fact, but did not report it to the authorities?

 

[Hot Topic]

You can refuse to testify. You can then be subpoenaed.

You should contact an attorney. And you should ask yourself why you're conflicted about testifying against the scumbags who financially took advantage of one's parents.

 

[AmBe0241]

I'm not that conflicted. I just don't want to be nailed in a civil suit or something because I heard of it, and didn't report it.

 

[latigo]

because I heard of it, and didn't report it.

If you just “heard of it”, then it is hearsay and inadmissible evidence and you would never have to repeat what you heard from the witness stand.

That is, UNLESS you heard it from the mouth of the alleged perpetrator and then it would be an exception to the hearsay exclusionary rule and admissible evidence as an admission against the speaker’s interests.
__________

Also, you are much confused about what is required in order for person to be found guilty as an accessory after the fact.

The simple knowing of the crime and who committed it and failing to report it (with the exception of some CPS laws) does not constitute a crime.

An accessory after the fact is one who with knowledge of a felony having been committed “relieves, comforts, or assists the felon in order to hinder the felon's apprehension, trial, or punishment”.

The husband wants to call me as a witness that the wife was the one who primarily deceived her parents. I do not want to testify since they are both friends.

You have strange choice of “friends”!

Secondly, this husband is a stupid idiot for wanting you in the same Hemisphere where the trial will take place.

He wants you to testify that the wife was “primarily” and he was only “secondarily” responsible for scamming her parents?? What a dope!

That’s the same corner homicide investigators like to put a robbery/murder suspect in. Get him to admit that it was his partner idea to do the score and he was the trigger man. It makes them both guilty of homicide.

Also, as long as you don’t tell any lies while under oath, you aint’ going to get sued by nobody. Got it?

So what other excuses have you come up with?

 

[AmBe0241]

No excuses. As long as I'm not going to take a fall for someone elses deeds, I'm fine with it. Court is always easy for me. The lawyers usually hate me because I refuse to let them "prepare" me to testify. I always tell them I don't need to practice to tell the truth. Want me as a witness, roll the dice, no one gets the answers ahead of time.

 

[AmBe0241]

Also, thank you for your reply. You've put me at ease. I appreciate your time.

 

[latigo]

I don’t need no lawyer to prepare ME how to tell the truth!

Is that so?

Well here you’ve truthfully posted four times in this thread and yet nobody has a blessed clue of what is meant by "financially taking advantage". Whether it was a loan, a criminal scam, fiduciary abuse, elderly abuse, embezzlement, etc., nor how, when and why you were let in on it.

Nor whether the information you may harbor is admissible or not admissible in a court of law.

But I can assure you of this. You know more about the alleged swindling and your sense of loyalty to the husband and wife than you do the art of communicating the TRUTH to a judge or jury – and to do so effectively and in compliance with the complicated and restrictive rules of evidence.

Rules of evidence, by the way, that have been honed for a thousand plus years for the sole purpose of sorting out “THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH”! And Rules that you wouldn’t understand if you spent the next five years trying to understand them!

And not find yourself in a hole by having your particular mode of unaided, unprepared “truthful testimony” so distorted, clouded and destroyed by an experienced cross-examiner that the audience doesn’t know which way is up!

If you know all the answers, then why are you troubling other people?

(Incidentally, if you ever need major surgery, be sure to inform the surgeons and the hospital staff that YOU will take care of the pre-op procedures – no help needed!)

 

[AmBe0241]

I was vague on purpose about the particulars.
But I understand your point about the rules of evidence. Thank you for pointing that out to me.
And thanks again for your time.

 

[latigo]

And I apologize for being so rudely harsh.

But the point I wish to make is that it is absolutely necessary for the client’s attorney to interview and prepare potential witnesses for his client. Not to do so and not knowing what the witness is going to say on the stand would be gross professional misfeasance!

Unlike Judge Judy’s TV travesty where the parties stand up and babble until Judy sees that she’s being upstaged, formal court testimony is NEVER given in the narrative form.

It must proceed orderly from questions to answers. And how is the attorney going to know what to ask the witness and the witness to know what those questions are going to be without preparation? It cannot be done.

Lawyers that try cases without that minimal preparation shortly end up finding honest means of a livelihood.