Nebraska Revised Statutes
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-615 (2026)
Rule 615. Exclusion of witnesses; exceptions
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
At the request of a party the judge shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses, and he may make the order on his own motion. This rule does not authorize exclusion of (1) a party who is a natural person, or (2) an officer or employee of a party which is not a natural person designated as its representative by its attorney, or (3) a person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of his cause.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: State v. Johnson, 988 N.W.2d 159 (Neb. 2023).
State v. Johnson, 988 N.W.2d 159 (Neb. 2023). “ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Johnson assigns that the district court erred by (1) failing to instruct the jury on self-defense; (2) failing to sequester a State’s witness at Johnson’s request, in violation of Neb.”
In re Interest of Gabriel B., 976 N.W.2d 206 (Neb. Ct. App. 2022). “The court determined, based on its interpretation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-615 (Reissue 2016), that the State needed to “make a showing” that Johnson needed to hear the testimony of other witnesses in order to form her opinion regarding Gabriel’s best interests.”
State v. Freeman, 677 N.W.2d 164 (Neb. 2004). “ANALYSIS Designation of State’s Representative Prior to trial, the State filed a notice designating Brent Lottman, a deputy sheriff for Nemaha County, as its representative for trial, citing Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-615 (2) (Reissue 1995) and State v.”
State v. Trail, 312 Neb. 843 (Neb. 2022). “” 76 Trail elaborates that under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-615 (Reissue 2016), he had a right to have the witnesses excluded so that they could not hear the testimony of other witnesses.”
State v. Ryan, 444 N.W.2d 610 (Neb. 1989). “” During the trial, the court ordered that the witnesses be sequestered pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-615 (Reissue 1985). The defendant contends that he was denied due process and his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him because the State had a…”
State v. Nesbitt, 650 N.W.2d 766 (Neb. 2002). “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-615 (Reissue 1995). The prosecution, however, asked the district court to except Miller from the sequestration order to allow him to assist the State in obtaining witnesses and presenting its case.”
State Ex Rel. Nebraska State Bar Ass'n v. Miller, 602 N.W.2d 486 (Neb. 1999). “Miller points to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-615 (Reissue 1995) to support his claim that Sharon should have been excluded.”
State v. Embree, 987 N.W.2d 297 (Neb. Ct. App. 2023). “While Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-615 (3) (Reissue 2016) requires a showing that a person is essential to the presentation of the cause, it does not require the party to present any evidence on the matter.”
State v. Jackson, 435 N.W.2d 893 (Neb. 1989). “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-615 (Reissue 1985). The prosecutor informed the court as to why the presence of the State’s expert witness was essential to the State’s case: Further, your Honor, Dr.”
State v. Eynon, 250 N.W.2d 658 (Neb. 1977). “1943, requires exclusion of witnesses, but contains three exceptions, one of which is “(3) a person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of his cause.” The record establishes that in this case the victim comes within the exception.”
Dennis W. v. Mental Health Bd., 717 N.W.2d 488 (Neb. Ct. App. 2006). “Here, Dennis asserts that the district court erred in affirming the decision of the Board to allow Dr.”
State v. Hunter, 451 N.W.2d 922 (Neb. 1990). “Claiming the Douglas County Court failed to sequester the prosecution’s witnesses, as mandated by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-615 (Reissue 1989), Carol Hunter appeals her convictions for violation of two municipal dog ordinances in Omaha.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-615(1) — 1 case
State v. Johnson, 988 N.W.2d 159 (Neb. 2023). “ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Johnson assigns that the district court erred by (1) failing to instruct the jury on self-defense; (2) failing to sequester a State’s witness at Johnson’s request, in violation of Neb.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-615(2) — 4 cases
State v. Freeman, 677 N.W.2d 164 (Neb. 2004). “ANALYSIS Designation of State’s Representative Prior to trial, the State filed a notice designating Brent Lottman, a deputy sheriff for Nemaha County, as its representative for trial, citing Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-615 (2) (Reissue 1995) and State v.”
State v. Ryan, 444 N.W.2d 610 (Neb. 1989). “” During the trial, the court ordered that the witnesses be sequestered pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-615 (Reissue 1985). The defendant contends that he was denied due process and his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him because the State had a…”
State v. Carmenates (Neb. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Herrera (Neb. Ct. App. 2025).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-615(3) — 3 cases
State v. Nesbitt, 650 N.W.2d 766 (Neb. 2002). “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-615 (Reissue 1995). The prosecution, however, asked the district court to except Miller from the sequestration order to allow him to assist the State in obtaining witnesses and presenting its case.”
State Ex Rel. Nebraska State Bar Ass'n v. Miller, 602 N.W.2d 486 (Neb. 1999). “Miller points to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-615 (Reissue 1995) to support his claim that Sharon should have been excluded.”
State v. Embree, 987 N.W.2d 297 (Neb. Ct. App. 2023). “While Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-615 (3) (Reissue 2016) requires a showing that a person is essential to the presentation of the cause, it does not require the party to present any evidence on the matter.”
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.