State of West Virginia v. Daniel L. Herbert
West Virginia Supreme Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLoughry, Justice
The majority creates new law for West Virginia, but without support from any other jurisdiction in the entire country. Overturning recent precedent, the majority holds that in criminal trials, trial courts “shall require” a non-party witness to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination “in the presence of the jury.” This new rule of law is fraught with problems, including the potential for manipulation by allowing either the prosecution or the defendant to call a witness solely to allow the jury to draw adverse inferences from a witness’s refusal to testify. The majority’s decision will…
2Cases cited53 opinions
- Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Ohio v. RobertsSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Washington v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Maryland v. CraigSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Bridge v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1986
48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.