FREE e-Newsletter
Important News - Hot Topics
Get them Now!

The Law Officer's Pocket Manual - Bloomberg BNA
This handy 4" x 6" spiral-bound manual offers examples showing how rules are...

Top News

Court Blocks Order Forcing Officer to Testify at Freddie Gray Trial

January 08, 2016  | 

Prosecutors are asking an appeals court to side with the state and force an officer to testify at a colleague's trial in the death of Freddie Gray, reports the Associated Press.

The court issued a temporary order Friday that said the Officer William Porter doesn't have to testify against van driver Caesar Goodson, but the judges will reconsider now that prosecutors have responded. They did not immediately rule.


Comments (4)

Displaying 1 - 4 of 4

Leonard @ 1/9/2016 2:55 PM

I can't say that I disagree with this action. No one should be forced to provide testimony that could incriminate himself.

Angil @ 1/9/2016 8:53 PM

It would be in violation of his 5th Amendment Right to force him to testify. I'm sure that excuse of human breath is hoping that he will self incriminate.
How ludicrous is this chick going to be? I would plea the 5th all day long!!!!!!!!!

AZBIGDOG @ 1/10/2016 6:52 AM

So, they have already set the new trial for the officer, yet are going to force him to testify against another officer before that trial? Don't understand the courts anymore. If the office was a criminal they would bend over backwards and make the stupidest and least commonsense decisions about not forcing them to violate their rights. But wait, this is a Police Officer and he needs to testify because then they can convict more officers and him at his later trial based on information he gives at the other officers trials. So what difference is there? He is a police officer and if the slugs they have for prosecutors can violate the officers rights they can convict them and further their political careers.

AZBIGDOG @ 1/10/2016 6:52 AM

So, they have already set the new trial for the officer, yet are going to force him to testify against another officer before that trial? Don't understand the courts anymore. If the office was a criminal they would bend over backwards and make the stupidest and least commonsense decisions about not forcing them to violate their rights. But wait, this is a Police Officer and he needs to testify because then they can convict more officers and him at his later trial based on information he gives at the other officers trials. So what difference is there? He is a police officer and if the slugs they have for prosecutors can violate the officers rights they can convict them and further their political careers.

Join the Discussion





POLICE Magazine does not tolerate comments that include profanity, personal attacks or antisocial behavior (such as "spamming" or "trolling"). This and other inappropriate content or material will be removed. We reserve the right to block any user who violates this, including removing all content posted by that user.
Police Magazine