 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Commonwealth v. Leahy2/7/2003
t witness to testify remotely from his or her place of employment clearly saves time and travel expenses, the primary considerations must be to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial and to ensure fairness in the administration of justice. See RCr 1.04.
To this end, it is the responsibility of the trial court to ensure that new technology is implemented in a manner which is consistent with a defendant's rights. If the video equipment fails to operate satisfactorily, a trial court would be within its discretion to require a witness to appear in person. Furthermore, the video-conferencing system should not be used merely because the Commonwealth (or the defendant) believes that an expert witness might make a better impression on the jury when testifying remotely rather than in person. Such determinations are committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, who is the best gauge to determine the fairness of a proceeding. Commonwealth v. Willis, Ky., 716 S.W.2d 224, 231 (1986). Because I agree that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in this case, I concur with the decision to uphold Leahy's conviction.
Page 1 2 3 4 Kentucky DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|