Legal question....

[jman3000]

What legal process can the state enact to ensure that their witness' identity is not disclosed via discovery in the pre-trial phase?

[exstatic]

Waterboarding.

[jman3000]

Fuck me. I know the answer is here somewhere. I just can't read my own God forsaken handwriting.

[CosmicCowboy]

What legal process can the state enact to ensure that their witness' identity is not disclosed via discovery in the pre-trial phase?

Is it safe to assume that we are talking about a criminal case and you or someone close to you is the witness?

The judge/grand jury can cover the identity during pre-trial disclosure by calling you/them witness X but lets face it...the accused is going to have a pretty damn good idea who witness X is based on what you/they say and what they know various people know.

Come trial all bets are off. The prosecution can't use the testimony unless the accuser shows up in person.

If you flipped on someone they ARE going to figure it out.

[jman3000]

I'm not directly involved in the case.

In Bexar County it's pretty much an open records system where whatever the defense wants, the defense gets. Other counties are more stingy when it comes to acquiring information and make you go through flaming rings to get the info... but Bexar just says "Here ya go".

There's something that the State can enact or request which either postpones or denies the defense's access to material related to a witness.

[Bender]

isn't FWD a lawyer?

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm not directly involved in the case.

In Bexar County it's pretty much an open records system where whatever the defense wants, the defense gets. Other counties are more stingy when it comes to acquiring information and make you go through flaming rings to get the info... but Bexar just says "Here ya go".

There's something that the State can enact or request which either postpones or denies the defense's access to material related to a witness.

It's not just Bexar County. The defense is entitled to every bit of evidence that is going to be used against them no matter what county. They just don't have to know the specific identities of the witnesses till it actually goes to trial. They just have to be informed what the witness is planning to testify to. It's grounds for a mis-trial if the prosecution doesn't fully disclose their case.

[FromWayDowntown]

Unfortunately -- at least in this situation -- I don't practice criminal law in any respect.

I'd think that if the State believed and could prove that a witness might be harmed if his or her identity were revealed prematurely, it might be able to protect the identity of the witness for a period of time. That, I suspect, is the basic principle upon which the federal witness protection program operates.

Beyond that, it might be possible for a prosecutor to file a motion to quash any discovery requests seeking the names of particular witnesses or to redact the witness's name from documents developed through interviews, grand jury testimony, or the rare deposition transcript. But I'll readily admit that I'm totally whistling in the dark about the nuances of discovery in criminal cases.

Sorry.

[ShoogarBear]

jman is a narc?

[jman3000]

It's not just Bexar County. The defense is entitled to every bit of evidence that is going to be used against them no matter what county. They just don't have to know the specific identities of the witnesses till it actually goes to trial. They just have to be informed what the witness is planning to testify to. It's grounds for a mis-trial if the prosecution doesn't fully disclose their case.

That's not what I said. Of course the prosecutor has to share all information with the defense. It is different how different counties handle the defense's ability to acquire that information. In Bexar county the clerk will just hand you a giant portfolio with all the information in it. In other counties they will make you go through numerous steps to get it. It's a difference of making it easy on the defense vs. making them get the info peacemeal.

[jman3000]

The term is called a "postponement". Silly me, I thought it would be more law soundy.

Bad case of trying to outsmart myself.