witness claim in Louisiana

90 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1928–2025 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (21)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Berrygreen la · 1975 · cited in 20 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1977–2025 2 sentences 2024See Edwards, 419 So. 2d at 892 , quoting State v. Berry, 324 So.2d 822, 830 ( La. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U. S. 954 , 96 S. Ct. 1731 , 48 L.Ed. 2d 198 ( 1976) (" It is improper conduct for either the prosecution or the defense knowingly to call a witness who will claim a privilege, for the purpose of impressing upon the jury the fact of the claim of privilege.") Where Nicholas ultimately invoked his right to remain silent outside the presence of the jury, the defendant failed to show that the State' s conduct was so prejudicial as to make it impossible for him to obtain a fair trial, as requi 2000Moreover, this court has held that it is impermissible to knowingly call a witness who will claim a privilege, "for the purpose of impressing upon the jury the fact of the claim of privilege." See State v. Wille, 559 So.2d 1321 (La.1990); reh'ing denied, 595 So.2d 1149 (La.1992); cert. denied, 506 U.S. 880 , 113 S.Ct. 231 , 121 L.Ed.2d 167 (1992); reh'ing denied, 506 U.S. 1016 , 113 S.Ct. 645 , 121 L.Ed. 575 (1992); State v. Berry, 324 So.2d 822 (La.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 954 , 96 S.Ct. 1731 , 48 L.Ed.2d 198 (1976).	5	20
State v. Stewartgreen la · 1980 · cited in 5 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1983–2017 2 sentences 2017State v. Stewart, 387 So.2d 1103, 1107 (La. 1980). 2013“The trial judge, in his discretion, may determine the disqualification of a witness when a rule of sequestration has been violated.” State v. Draughn, 2005-1825, p. 57 (La.1/17/07), 950 So.2d 583, 621 (citing State v. Stewart, 387 So.2d 1103, 1107 (La.1980)).	3	5
State v. Koongreen la · 1997 · cited in 5 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2001–2018 2 sentences 2018See State v. Koon , 96-1208, p. 25 (La. 5/20/97), 704 So.2d 756 , 771-72. 2012State v. Koon, 96-1208, p. 25 (La.5/20/97), 704 So.2d 756 ; see also, State v. Asberry, 99-3056, (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/16/01), 808 So.2d 472 .	2	5
State v. Darbygreen la · 1981 · cited in 4 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1984–2007 2 sentences 2007Privilege Against Self-Incrimination The defendant contends that the “trial court denied [him] due process of law and the right to present witnesses in his defense when it permitted Steven James Reinholdt to enter a blanket Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.” In State v. Darby, 403 So.2d 44, 48 (La.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1152 , 102 S.Ct. 1022 , 71 L.Ed.2d 308 (1982), the supreme court held that “[i]t is reversible error to allow a witness to claim a blanket privilege [against self-incrimination].” However, the supreme court concluded that given the facts and circumsta 2007Privilege Against Self-Incrimination The defendant contends that the "trial court denied [him] due process of law and the right to present witnesses in his defense when it permitted Steven James Reinholdt to enter a blanket Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination." In State v. Darby, 403 So.2d 44, 48 (La.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1152 , 102 S.Ct. 1022 , 71 L.Ed.2d 308 (1982), the supreme court held that "[i]t is reversible error to allow a witness to claim a blanket privilege [against self-incrimination]." However, the supreme court concluded that given the facts and circumsta	2	4
State v. Asberrygreen lactapp · 2001 · cited in 3 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2002–2012 2 sentences 2012State v. Koon, 96-1208, p. 25 (La.5/20/97), 704 So.2d 756 ; see also, State v. Asberry, 99-3056, (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/16/01), 808 So.2d 472 . 2010State v. Koon, 96-1208, p. 25 (La.5/20/97), 704 So.2d 756 ; see also, State v. Asberry, 99-3056, (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/16/01), 808 So.2d 472 .	2	3
State v. Duhongreen la · 1976 · cited in 2 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1995–2025 2 sentences 2025State v. Duhon, 332 So. 2d 245, 247 (La. 1976); State v. Berry, 324 So. 2d 822, 830 (La. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 954 , 96 S. Ct. 1731 , 48 L. 1995The jurisprudence has held: "It is improper conduct for either the prosecution or the defense knowingly to call a witness who will claim a privilege, for the purpose of impressing upon the jury the fact of the claim or privilege." State v. Berry, 324 So.2d 822 , 830 (La.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 954 , 96 S.Ct. 1731 , 48 L.Ed.2d 198 (1976); see also State v. Duhon, 332 So.2d 245, 247 (La. 1976).	2	2
State v. Rivieregreen la · 1954 · cited in 2 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1970–1977	2	2
Berry v. Louisianagreen scotus · 1976 · cited in 10 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1989–2025 2 sentences 2024See Edwards, 419 So. 2d at 892 , quoting State v. Berry, 324 So.2d 822, 830 ( La. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U. S. 954 , 96 S. Ct. 1731 , 48 L.Ed. 2d 198 ( 1976) (" It is improper conduct for either the prosecution or the defense knowingly to call a witness who will claim a privilege, for the purpose of impressing upon the jury the fact of the claim of privilege.") Where Nicholas ultimately invoked his right to remain silent outside the presence of the jury, the defendant failed to show that the State' s conduct was so prejudicial as to make it impossible for him to obtain a fair trial, as requi 2000Moreover, this court has held that it is impermissible to knowingly call a witness who will claim a privilege, "for the purpose of impressing upon the jury the fact of the claim of privilege." See State v. Wille, 559 So.2d 1321 (La.1990); reh'ing denied, 595 So.2d 1149 (La.1992); cert. denied, 506 U.S. 880 , 113 S.Ct. 231 , 121 L.Ed.2d 167 (1992); reh'ing denied, 506 U.S. 1016 , 113 S.Ct. 645 , 121 L.Ed. 575 (1992); State v. Berry, 324 So.2d 822 (La.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 954 , 96 S.Ct. 1731 , 48 L.Ed.2d 198 (1976).	1	10
Combs v. Tennesseegreen scotus · 1976 · cited in 9 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1989–2025 2 sentences 2024See Edwards, 419 So. 2d at 892 , quoting State v. Berry, 324 So.2d 822, 830 ( La. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U. S. 954 , 96 S. Ct. 1731 , 48 L.Ed. 2d 198 ( 1976) (" It is improper conduct for either the prosecution or the defense knowingly to call a witness who will claim a privilege, for the purpose of impressing upon the jury the fact of the claim of privilege.") Where Nicholas ultimately invoked his right to remain silent outside the presence of the jury, the defendant failed to show that the State' s conduct was so prejudicial as to make it impossible for him to obtain a fair trial, as requi 2000Moreover, this court has held that it is impermissible to knowingly call a witness who will claim a privilege, "for the purpose of impressing upon the jury the fact of the claim of privilege." See State v. Wille, 559 So.2d 1321 (La.1990); reh'ing denied, 595 So.2d 1149 (La.1992); cert. denied, 506 U.S. 880 , 113 S.Ct. 231 , 121 L.Ed.2d 167 (1992); reh'ing denied, 506 U.S. 1016 , 113 S.Ct. 645 , 121 L.Ed. 575 (1992); State v. Berry, 324 So.2d 822 (La.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 954 , 96 S.Ct. 1731 , 48 L.Ed.2d 198 (1976).	1	9
State v. Edwardsgreen la · 1982 · cited in 2 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1990–2024 2 sentences 2024See Edwards, 419 So. 2d at 892 , quoting State v. Berry, 324 So.2d 822, 830 ( La. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U. S. 954 , 96 S. Ct. 1731 , 48 L.Ed. 2d 198 ( 1976) (" It is improper conduct for either the prosecution or the defense knowingly to call a witness who will claim a privilege, for the purpose of impressing upon the jury the fact of the claim of privilege.") Where Nicholas ultimately invoked his right to remain silent outside the presence of the jury, the defendant failed to show that the State' s conduct was so prejudicial as to make it impossible for him to obtain a fair trial, as requi 1990Hence, the trial judge correctly denied defense witness immunity in this case." (Footnotes omitted.) See also, State v. Lombard, supra; State v. Edwards, supra; State v. Bice, supra; State v. Harris, 510 So.2d 439 (La.App. 1st Cir.1987), writ denied, 538 So.2d 610 (La. 1989); State v. Thomas, supra; State v. Birdsong, 452 So.2d 1236 (La.App. 2d Cir.), writ denied, 457 So.2d 1200 (La.1984); and State v. Wade, supra. If Windham's testimony would be self-incriminating, then he is clearly a potential target of prosecution and the trial court properly denied the claim for defense witness immunity.	1	2
State v. Johnsongreen lactapp · 2003 · cited in 2 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2013–2014 2 sentences 2014See State v. Johnson, 01-2334, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/4/02), 833 So.2d 508, 511 . 2013This Court has recognized that “the purpose of a sequestration order is to prevent a witness from hearing or learning of the testimony of the other witnesses before he takes the stand, preventing the witness from deliberately tailoring his testimony to that of other witnesses.” State v. Johnson, 2001-2334, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/4/02), 833 So.2d 508, 511 .	1	2
State v. Thomasgreen lactapp · 1987 · cited in 2 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1990–2013 2 sentences 2013United States v. Turkish, supra, (footnotes omitted) In State v. Mattheson, 407 So.2d at 1161 , the Louisiana Supreme Court also made clear that “a trial judge properly rejects a claim for defense witness immunity whenever the witness for whom immunity is sought is an actual or potential target of prosecution.” See also State v. Thomas, 504 So.2d 907, 913 (La.App. 1 Cir.1987), writ denied, 507 So.2d 225 (La.1987). 1990Hence, the trial judge correctly denied defense witness immunity in this case." (Footnotes omitted.) See also, State v. Lombard, supra; State v. Edwards, supra; State v. Bice, supra; State v. Harris, 510 So.2d 439 (La.App. 1st Cir.1987), writ denied, 538 So.2d 610 (La. 1989); State v. Thomas, supra; State v. Birdsong, 452 So.2d 1236 (La.App. 2d Cir.), writ denied, 457 So.2d 1200 (La.1984); and State v. Wade, supra. If Windham's testimony would be self-incriminating, then he is clearly a potential target of prosecution and the trial court properly denied the claim for defense witness immunity.	1	2
State v. Draughngreen la · 2007 · cited in 2 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2007–2013 2 sentences 2013“The trial judge, in his discretion, may determine the disqualification of a witness when a rule of sequestration has been violated.” State v. Draughn, 2005-1825, p. 57 (La.1/17/07), 950 So.2d 583, 621 (citing State v. Stewart, 387 So.2d 1103, 1107 (La.1980)). 2007Id.	1	2
State v. Warrengreen la · 1983 · cited in 2 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1986–1987 2 sentences 1987State v. Warren, supra ; State v. Kimble, 407 So.2d 693 (La.1981); State v. Boutte, 384 So.2d 773 (La.1980). 1986La.C.Cr.P. art. 764; State v. Warren, 437 So.2d 836, 839 (La. 1983).	1	2
State v. Daygreen la · 1981 · cited in 2 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1981–1986	1	2
State v. MMgreen lactapp · 2001 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013	1	1
State v. Badeauxgreen la · 2002 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013	1	1
Click v. Alabamagreen scotus · 1997 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001	1	1
Edwards v. Carlsongreen scotus · 1997 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001	1	1
State v. Kleingreen la · 1977 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988	1	1
State v. Gambinogreen la · 1978 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (59)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Kimble green la · 1981 2 sentences 1989State v. Kimble, supra ; State v. Mullins, 353 So.2d 243 (La.1977). 1988State v. Armstead, 432 So.2d 837 (La.1983); State v. Kimble, 407 So.2d 693 (La.1981). [7-9] La.C.Cr.P. art. 764 vests discretion in the trial judge to disqualify a witness when a rule of sequestration has been violated.	7	1983–1989
State v. Mullins green la · 1977 2 sentences 1989State v. Kimble, supra ; State v. Mullins, 353 So.2d 243 (La.1977). 1986State v. Narcisse, 426 So.2d 118 (La.1983); State v. Stewart, 387 So.2d 1103 (La.1980); State v. Mullins, 353 So.2d 243 (La.1977); State v. Jackson, 452 So.2d 1225 (La.App.2d Cir.1984).	6	1978–1989
State v. Wilson green la · 1981 2 sentences 1989State v. Darby, 403 So.2d 44 (La.1981); State v. Wilson, supra. However, that rule is subject to exceptions. 1984State v. Darby, 403 So.2d 44 (La.1981); State v. Wilson, supra. However, that rule is subject to exceptions.	4	1981–1989
Marrogi v. Howard green la · 2002 2 sentences 2014Marrogi v. Howard, 01-1106 (La.1/15/02), 805 So.2d 1118, 1125 . 2008Id. at p. 25, 805 So.2d at 1133 .	3	2002–2014
State v. Haddad green la · 2000 2 sentences 2007Moreover, in State v. Haddad, 99-1272, p. 5 (La.2/29/00), 767 So.2d 682, 686 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1070 , 121 S.Ct. 757 , 148 L.Ed.2d 660 (2001), the supreme court held that “[a]s a general proposition, when faced with resolving the tension between a witness’ Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to present a defense, this court has consistently recognized the witness’s right not to incriminate himself.” The record shows that on the last day of trial, the defendant called Reinholdt as a witness. 2003In State v. Haddad, 99-1272 (La.2/29/00), 767 So.2d 682 , the Louisiana Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that it is impermissible to knowingly call a witness who will claim a privilege, for the purpose of impressing upon the jury the fact of the claim of privilege.	3	2003–2007
State v. Boutte green la · 1980 2 sentences 1988State v. Kimble, 407 So.2d 693 (La.1981); State v. Boutte, 384 So.2d 773 (La.1980). 1987State v. Warren, supra ; State v. Kimble, 407 So.2d 693 (La.1981); State v. Boutte, 384 So.2d 773 (La.1980).	3	1983–1988
State v. Ardoin green la · 1976 2 sentences 1980State v. Mullins, 353 So.2d 243 (La.1977); State v. Calloway, 343 So.2d 694 (La.1976); State v. Ardoin, 340 So.2d 1362 (La.1976). 1978State v. Mullins, supra ; State v. Calloway, 343 So.2d 694 (La.1976); State v. Ardoin, supra ; State v. Baker, 338 So.2d 1372 (La.1976); State v. Badon, 338 So.2d 665 (La.1976); State v. Batts, supra; State v. McKinney, 302 So.2d 917 (La.1974).	3	1977–1980
State v. Calloway green la · 1976 2 sentences 1980State v. Mullins, 353 So.2d 243 (La.1977); State v. Calloway, 343 So.2d 694 (La.1976); State v. Ardoin, 340 So.2d 1362 (La.1976). 1978State v. Mullins, supra ; State v. Calloway, 343 So.2d 694 (La.1976); State v. Ardoin, supra ; State v. Baker, 338 So.2d 1372 (La.1976); State v. Badon, 338 So.2d 665 (La.1976); State v. Batts, supra; State v. McKinney, 302 So.2d 917 (La.1974).	3	1977–1980
State v. McKinney green la · 1974 2 sentences 1978State v. Mullins, supra ; State v. Calloway, 343 So.2d 694 (La.1976); State v. Ardoin, supra ; State v. Baker, 338 So.2d 1372 (La.1976); State v. Badon, 338 So.2d 665 (La.1976); State v. Batts, supra; State v. McKinney, 302 So.2d 917 (La.1974). 1975Article 764 vests discretion in the trial judge as to the disqualification of a witness even when the rule of sequestration has been violated. *418 State v. McKinney, 302 So.2d 917 (La.1974); State v. Browning, 290 So.2d 322 (La.1974).	3	1975–1978
State v. Batts neutral la · 1975 2 sentences 1978State v. Mullins, supra ; State v. Calloway, 343 So.2d 694 (La.1976); State v. Ardoin, supra ; State v. Baker, 338 So.2d 1372 (La.1976); State v. Badon, 338 So.2d 665 (La.1976); State v. Batts, supra; State v. McKinney, 302 So.2d 917 (La.1974). 1977State v. Calloway, 343 So.2d 694 (La.1976); State v. Ardoin, supra ; State v. Baker, 338 So.2d 1372 (La.1976); State v. Badon, 338 So.2d 665 (La.1976); State v. Batts, supra ; State v. McKinney, 302 So.2d 917 (La.1974).	3	1976–1978
United States v. Norman Turkish green ca2 · 1980 2 sentences 2013United States v. Turkish, supra, (footnotes omitted) In State v. Mattheson, 407 So.2d at 1161 , the Louisiana Supreme Court also made clear that “a trial judge properly rejects a claim for defense witness immunity whenever the witness for whom immunity is sought is an actual or potential target of prosecution.” See also State v. Thomas, 504 So.2d 907, 913 (La.App. 1 Cir.1987), writ denied, 507 So.2d 225 (La.1987). 1990United States v. Turkish, supra . * * * * * * "We consider that a trial judge properly rejects a claim for defense witness immunity whenever the witness for whom immunity is sought is an actual or potential target of prosecution.	2	1990–2013
State v. Mattheson green la · 1981 2 sentences 2013United States v. Turkish, supra, (footnotes omitted) In State v. Mattheson, 407 So.2d at 1161 , the Louisiana Supreme Court also made clear that “a trial judge properly rejects a claim for defense witness immunity whenever the witness for whom immunity is sought is an actual or potential target of prosecution.” See also State v. Thomas, 504 So.2d 907, 913 (La.App. 1 Cir.1987), writ denied, 507 So.2d 225 (La.1987). 1984State v. Mattheson, supra, found that a trial judge properly rejects a claim for defense witness immunity whenever the witness for whom immunity is sought is an actual or potential target of prosecution.	2	1984–2013
Louisiana v. Haddad green scotus · 2001 2 sentences 2007Moreover, in State v. Haddad, 99-1272, p. 5 (La.2/29/00), 767 So.2d 682, 686 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1070 , 121 S.Ct. 757 , 148 L.Ed.2d 660 (2001), the supreme court held that “[a]s a general proposition, when faced with resolving the tension between a witness’ Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to present a defense, this court has consistently recognized the witness’s right not to incriminate himself.” The record shows that on the last day of trial, the defendant called Reinholdt as a witness. 2007Moreover, in State v. Haddad, 99-1272, p. 5 (La.2/29/00), 767 So.2d 682, 686 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1070 , 121 S.Ct. 757 , 148 L.Ed.2d 660 (2001), the supreme court held that “[a]s a general proposition, when faced with resolving the tension between a witness’ Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to present a defense, this court has consistently recognized the witness’s right not to incriminate himself.” The record shows that on the last day of trial, the defendant called Reinholdt as a witness.	2	2007–2007
Graham v. Alabama green scotus · 1982 2 sentences 2007Privilege Against Self-Incrimination The defendant contends that the “trial court denied [him] due process of law and the right to present witnesses in his defense when it permitted Steven James Reinholdt to enter a blanket Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.” In State v. Darby, 403 So.2d 44, 48 (La.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1152 , 102 S.Ct. 1022 , 71 L.Ed.2d 308 (1982), the supreme court held that “[i]t is reversible error to allow a witness to claim a blanket privilege [against self-incrimination].” However, the supreme court concluded that given the facts and circumsta 2007Privilege Against Self-Incrimination The defendant contends that the "trial court denied [him] due process of law and the right to present witnesses in his defense when it permitted Steven James Reinholdt to enter a blanket Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination." In State v. Darby, 403 So.2d 44, 48 (La.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1152 , 102 S.Ct. 1022 , 71 L.Ed.2d 308 (1982), the supreme court held that "[i]t is reversible error to allow a witness to claim a blanket privilege [against self-incrimination]." However, the supreme court concluded that given the facts and circumsta	2	2007–2007
Kilgore v. Duckworth green scotus · 1982 2 sentences 2007Privilege Against Self-Incrimination The defendant contends that the “trial court denied [him] due process of law and the right to present witnesses in his defense when it permitted Steven James Reinholdt to enter a blanket Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.” In State v. Darby, 403 So.2d 44, 48 (La.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1152 , 102 S.Ct. 1022 , 71 L.Ed.2d 308 (1982), the supreme court held that “[i]t is reversible error to allow a witness to claim a blanket privilege [against self-incrimination].” However, the supreme court concluded that given the facts and circumsta 2007Privilege Against Self-Incrimination The defendant contends that the "trial court denied [him] due process of law and the right to present witnesses in his defense when it permitted Steven James Reinholdt to enter a blanket Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination." In State v. Darby, 403 So.2d 44, 48 (La.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1152 , 102 S.Ct. 1022 , 71 L.Ed.2d 308 (1982), the supreme court held that "[i]t is reversible error to allow a witness to claim a blanket privilege [against self-incrimination]." However, the supreme court concluded that given the facts and circumsta	2	2007–2007
Kelley v. Lane green scotus · 1982 2 sentences 2007Privilege Against Self-Incrimination The defendant contends that the “trial court denied [him] due process of law and the right to present witnesses in his defense when it permitted Steven James Reinholdt to enter a blanket Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.” In State v. Darby, 403 So.2d 44, 48 (La.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1152 , 102 S.Ct. 1022 , 71 L.Ed.2d 308 (1982), the supreme court held that “[i]t is reversible error to allow a witness to claim a blanket privilege [against self-incrimination].” However, the supreme court concluded that given the facts and circumsta 2007Privilege Against Self-Incrimination The defendant contends that the "trial court denied [him] due process of law and the right to present witnesses in his defense when it permitted Steven James Reinholdt to enter a blanket Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination." In State v. Darby, 403 So.2d 44, 48 (La.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1152 , 102 S.Ct. 1022 , 71 L.Ed.2d 308 (1982), the supreme court held that "[i]t is reversible error to allow a witness to claim a blanket privilege [against self-incrimination]." However, the supreme court concluded that given the facts and circumsta	2	2007–2007
Patterson v. United States green scotus · 2001 2 sentences 2007Moreover, in State v. Haddad, 99-1272, p. 5 (La.2/29/00), 767 So.2d 682, 686 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1070 , 121 S.Ct. 757 , 148 L.Ed.2d 660 (2001), the supreme court held that “[a]s a general proposition, when faced with resolving the tension between a witness’ Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to present a defense, this court has consistently recognized the witness’s right not to incriminate himself.” The record shows that on the last day of trial, the defendant called Reinholdt as a witness. 2007Moreover, in State v. Haddad, 99-1272, p. 5 (La.2/29/00), 767 So.2d 682, 686 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1070 , 121 S.Ct. 757 , 148 L.Ed.2d 660 (2001), the supreme court held that "[a]s a general proposition, when faced with resolving the tension between a witness' Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to present a defense, this court has consistently recognized the witness's right not to incriminate himself." The record shows that on the last day of trial, the defendant called Reinholdt as a witness.	2	2007–2007
State v. Narcisse green la · 1983	2	1986–1987
State v. Baker neutral la · 1976	2	1977–1978
State v. Badon green la · 1976	2	1977–1978
State v. Kelley green la · 1961	2	1970–1977
State v. O'BLANC green la · 1977	1	2014–2014
State v. Ivy green la · 1975	1	2014–2014
State ex rel. Tilley v. Cain neutral la · 2003	1	2014–2014
State v. Sheppard green la · 1977	1	2014–2014
State v. Breaux neutral lactapp · 2013	1	2014–2014
State v. Hurst neutral lactapp · 2002	1	2013–2013
State v. Thomas green la · 1987	1	2013–2013
State v. Plaisance green lactapp · 2002	1	2013–2013
State v. Harris green la · 2005	1	2013–2013
State v. Smith green la · 1997	1	2012–2012
State v. Gerard green lactapp · 1996	1	2012–2012
State v. Smith green lactapp · 1996	1	2012–2012
State v. Ayo green lactapp · 2009	1	2011–2011
R.M. v. Supreme Court of New Jersey green nj · 2005	1	2009–2009
Doe v. Supreme Court of Florida green flsd · 1990	1	2009–2009
Bruce v. Byrne-Stevens & Associates Engineers, Inc. green wash · 1989	1	2002–2002
State v. Asberry neutral la · 2002	1	2002–2002
LLMD of Michigan, Inc. v. Jackson-Cross Co. green pa · 1999	1	2002–2002
Chambers v. Mississippi green scotus · 1973	1	2001–2001

Statutes the citing opinions construe

LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:30.1 (16) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 1 (12) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:30 (12) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 15:529.1 (10) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:64 (8) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 15:438 (8) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:31 (7) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:95.1 (7) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 3 (6) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 40:967 (6) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 11 (5) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:10 (5)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

NY 215 (1866–2024) CA 142 (1898–2026) TX 138 (1908–2026) IL 128 (1894–2026) PA 122 (1846–2025) GA 91 (1910–2025) LA 90 (1928–2025) KS 84 (1885–2024) OH 79 (1905–2026) FL 78 (1904–2026) MO 61 (1885–2023) MA 59 (1853–2024) MD 50 (1964–2020) NJ 48 (1954–2025) AL 46 (1846–2017) SC 45 (1930–2025) MI 43 (1904–2025) CT 39 (1886–2025) WA 38 (1893–2021) MS 37 (1888–2025) TN 36 (1943–2026) IN 31 (1888–2025) DC 28 (1974–2021) NM 26 (1923–2019) CO 25 (1902–2025) AR 25 (1975–2025) WV 24 (1898–2022) OR 23 (1894–2026) OK 23 (1910–2017) NE 22 (1916–2025) NC 21 (1880–2022) MN 19 (1890–2025) AZ 19 (1952–2021) IA 17 (1897–2022) WY 16 (1895–2023) ND 14 (1926–2024) KY 13 (1911–2022) ME 12 (1875–2025) WI 11 (1923–2025) UT 11 (1900–2016) HI 11 (1953–2025) RI 10 (1928–2023) AK 10 (1974–2025) VT 10 (1884–2020) DE 10 (1952–2026) NV 9 (1942–2022) ID 8 (1968–2026) VA 8 (1912–2025) MT 7 (1928–2026) SD 6 (1929–2022) NH 5 (1957–2001)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check