(1) A person confined in any prison in this state shall, by order of any court of record, be produced for oral examination in the county where he or she is imprisoned. In all other cases his or her examination must be by deposition.
(2) In civil matters, the court shall notify the Department of Correctional Services of any production order, in which a confined person is the subject, at least fifteen days before the required production. The court shall allow the department to present evidence relating to public safety and security concerns associated with the production of the confined person prior to the required production date. The party who moved for the production order shall be allowed to respond. Based on evidence presented, the court may rescind its production order. If the confined person is produced pursuant to court order, the party who moved for the production order shall pay to the department the actual cost of security and transportation arrangements incurred by the department related to such production.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases, 1955–2018 · leading case:
State v. Epp, 773 N.W.2d 356 (Neb. 2009).
State v. Epp, 773 N.W.2d 356 (Neb. 2009).
· cites it 8× “Epp asserted that Blessing and Forney would both testify that while they and Mick were incarcerated at the Gage County jail, Mick confessed to them that he had committed an armed robbery of a Casey's. The State objected to Epp's motions. The court denied the motions to transport…”
State v. Epp, 299 Neb. 703 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 4× “Epp 2 that we did not need to address Epp's argument that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1233 (Reissue 2016), which limits transportation of inmate witnesses, was unconstitutional, because the trial court did not err in finding that the inmate testimony Epp proffered was inadmissible…”
State v. Stott, 503 N.W.2d 822 (Neb. 1993).
· cites it 11× “Stott asserts, in summary, that the district court erred in (1) failing to *970 suppress certain evidence which he claims was obtained pursuant to an illegal warrant and (2) failing to find Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1233 (Reissue 1989) violative of the Sixth Amendment to the federal…”
Jacob v. Schlichtman, 753 N.W.2d 361 (Neb. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 7× “Jacob argues that Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-1233 (Cum.Supp.2006) requires Schlichtman to pay for his transportation costs.”
Garcia v. State, 68 N.W.2d 151 (Neb. 1955).
· cites it 2× “On the other hand the State claims, under the factual situation here, that section 25-1233, R. R. S. 1943, has application and the witness’s testimony could only be obtained by deposition.”
Rains v. State, 114 N.W.2d 399 (Neb. 1962).
· cites it 2× “Section 25-1233, R. R. S. 1943, is applicable to the instant case.”
State v. Epp, 299 Neb. 703 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 4× “Epp appealed his convictions and sentences, which were affirmed by this court.”
In re Est. of Flemming (Neb. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Notably, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1233 (1) (Reissue 2008) permits any prisoner in this State to be examined by deposition, where the prisoner is incarcerated outside the county of the venue of trial.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.