Common use of Superior Court of Nevada County Clause in Contracts

Superior Court of Nevada County. supra, and People x. Xxxxx, supra. The defendant has the same option as does the government if it is believed that disclosure of the identity of a witness may subject that witness to harm or a threat of harm. The defendant can ask for a protective order under subdivision (d)(1) or can take a deposition in accordance with the terms of rule 15. Subdivision (b)(2) is unchanged, appearing as the last sentence of subdivision (c) of old rule 16. Subdivision (b)(3) provides that the defendant’s fail- ure to introduce evidence or call witnesses shall not be admissible in evidence against him. In states which re- quire pretrial disclosure of witnesses’ identity, the prosecution is not allowed to comment upon the de- fendant’s failure to call a listed witness. See X’Xxxxxx v. State, 31 Wis.2d 684, 143 N.W.2d 489 (1966); People x. Xxxxxxx, 6 N.Y.2d 853, 188 N.Y.S.2d 559, 160 N.E.2d 91 (1959); and State x. Xxxxx, 73 Ohio App. 182, 55 N.E.2d 430 (1943). This is not, however, intended to abrogate the government’s right to comment generally upon the de- fendant’s failure to call witnesses in an appropriate case, other than the defendant’s failure to testify. Subdivision (c) is a restatement of part of old rule 16(g). Subdivision (d)(1) deals with the protective order. Al- though the rule does not attempt to indicate when a protective order should be entered, it is obvious that one would be appropriate where there is reason to be- lieve that a witness would be subject to physical or eco- nomic harm if his identity is revealed. See Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 88 S.Ct. 269, 19 L.Ed.2d 305 (1967). The language ‘‘by the judge alone’’ is not meant to be inconsistent with Xxxxxxxx v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969). In Xxxxxxxx the court points out that there may be appropriate oc- casions for the trial judge to decide questions relating to pretrial disclosure. See Xxxxxxxx v. United States, 394 U.S. at 182 n. 14, 89 S.Ct. 961. Subdivision (d)(2) is a restatement of part of old rule 16(g) and (d). Old subdivision (f) of rule 16 dealing with time of mo- tions is dropped because rule 12(c) provides the judge with authority to set the time for the making of pre- trial motions including requests for discovery. Rule 12 also prescribes the consequences which follow from a failure to make a pretrial motion at the time fixed by the court. See rule 12(f). NOTES OF COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, HOUSE REPORT NO. 94–247; 1975 AMENDMENT

Superior Court of Nevada County. supra, and People x. Xxxxxv. Lopez, supra. The defendant has the same option as does the government if it is believed that disclosure of the identity of a witness may subject that witness to harm or a threat of harm. The defendant can ask for a protective order under subdivision (d)(1) or can take a deposition in accordance with the terms of rule 15. Subdivision (b)(2) is unchanged, appearing as the last sentence of subdivision (c) of old rule 16. Subdivision (b)(3) provides that the defendant’s fail- ure to introduce evidence or call witnesses shall not be admissible in evidence against him. In states which re- quire pretrial disclosure of witnesses’ identity, the prosecution is not allowed to comment upon the de- fendant’s failure to call a listed witness. See X’Xxxxxx O’Connor v. State, 31 Wis.2d 684, 143 N.W.2d 489 (1966); People x. Xxxxxxxv. Mancini, 6 N.Y.2d 853, 188 N.Y.S.2d 559, 160 N.E.2d 91 (1959); and State x. Xxxxxv. Cocco, 73 Ohio App. 182, 55 N.E.2d 430 (1943). This is not, however, intended to abrogate the government’s right to comment generally upon the de- fendant’s failure to call witnesses in an appropriate case, other than the defendant’s failure to testify. Subdivision (c) is a restatement of part of old rule 16(g). Subdivision (d)(1) deals with the protective order. Al- though the rule does not attempt to indicate when a protective order should be entered, it is obvious that one would be appropriate where there is reason to be- lieve that a witness would be subject to physical or eco- nomic harm if his identity is revealed. See Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 88 S.Ct. 269, 19 L.Ed.2d 305 (1967). The language ‘‘by the judge alone’’ is not meant to be inconsistent with Xxxxxxxx Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969). In Xxxxxxxx Alderman the court points out that there may be appropriate oc- casions for the trial judge to decide questions relating to pretrial disclosure. See Xxxxxxxx Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. at 182 n. 14, 89 S.Ct. 961. Subdivision (d)(2) is a restatement of part of old rule 16(g) and (d). Old subdivision (f) of rule 16 dealing with time of mo- tions is dropped because rule 12(c) provides the judge with authority to set the time for the making of pre- trial motions including requests for discovery. Rule 12 also prescribes the consequences which follow from a failure to make a pretrial motion at the time fixed by the court. See rule 12(f). NOTES OF COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARYNotes of Committee on the Judiciary, HOUSE REPORT NOHouse Report No. 94–247; 1975 AMENDMENTAmendment

Superior Court of Nevada County. supra, and People x. Xxxxx, supra. The defendant has the same option as does the government if it is believed that disclosure of the identity of a witness may subject that witness to harm or a threat of harm. The defendant can ask for a protective order under subdivision (d)(1) or can take a deposition in accordance with the terms of rule 15. Subdivision (b)(2) is unchanged, appearing as the last sentence of subdivision (c) of old rule 16. Subdivision (b)(3) provides that the defendant’s fail- ure to introduce evidence or call witnesses shall not be admissible in evidence against him. In states which re- quire pretrial disclosure of witnesses’ identity, the prosecution is not allowed to comment upon the de- fendant’s failure to call a listed witness. See X’Xxxxxx v. State, 31 Wis.2d 684, 143 N.W.2d 489 (1966); People x. Xxxxxxx, 6 N.Y.2d 853, 188 N.Y.S.2d 559, 160 N.E.2d 91 Page 85 TITLE 18, APPENDIX—RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Rule 16 (1959); and State x. Xxxxx, 73 Ohio App. 182, 55 N.E.2d 430 (1943). This is not, however, intended to abrogate the government’s right to comment generally upon the de- fendant’s failure to call witnesses in an appropriate case, other than the defendant’s failure to testify. Subdivision (c) is a restatement of part of old rule 16(g). Subdivision (d)(1) deals with the protective order. Al- though the rule does not attempt to indicate when a protective order should be entered, it is obvious that one would be appropriate where there is reason to be- lieve that a witness would be subject to physical or eco- nomic harm if his identity is revealed. See Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 88 S.Ct. 269, 19 L.Ed.2d 305 (1967). The language ‘‘by the judge alone’’ is not meant to be inconsistent with Xxxxxxxx v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969). In Xxxxxxxx the court points out that there may be appropriate oc- casions for the trial judge to decide questions relating to pretrial disclosure. See Xxxxxxxx v. United States, 394 U.S. at 182 n. 14, 89 S.Ct. 961. Subdivision (d)(2) is a restatement of part of old rule 16(g) and (d). Old subdivision (f) of rule 16 dealing with time of mo- tions is dropped because rule 12(c) provides the judge with authority to set the time for the making of pre- trial motions including requests for discovery. Rule 12 also prescribes the consequences which follow from a failure to make a pretrial motion at the time fixed by the court. See rule 12(f). NOTES OF COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, HOUSE REPORT NO. 94–247; 1975 AMENDMENT

Superior Court of Nevada County. supra, and People x. Xxxxx, supra. The defendant has the same option as does the government if it is believed that disclosure of the identity of a witness may subject that witness to harm or a threat of harm. The defendant can ask for a protective order under subdivision (d)(1) or can take a deposition in accordance with the terms of rule 15. Subdivision (b)(2) is unchanged, appearing as the last sentence of subdivision (c) of old rule 16. Subdivision (b)(3) provides that the defendant’s fail- ure to introduce evidence or call witnesses shall not be admissible in evidence against him. In states which re- quire pretrial disclosure of witnesses’ identity, the prosecution is not allowed to comment upon the de- fendant’s failure to call a listed witness. See X’Xxxxxx v. State, 31 Wis.2d 684, 143 N.W.2d 489 (1966); People x. Xxxxxxx, 6 N.Y.2d 853, 188 N.Y.S.2d 559, 160 N.E.2d 91 (1959); and State x. Xxxxx, 73 Ohio App. 182, 55 N.E.2d 430 (1943). This is not, however, intended to abrogate the government’s right to comment generally upon the de- fendant’s failure to call witnesses in an appropriate case, other than the defendant’s failure to testify. Subdivision (c) is a restatement of part of old rule 16(g). Subdivision (d)(1) deals with the protective order. Al- though the rule does not attempt to indicate when a protective order should be entered, it is obvious that one would be appropriate where there is reason to be- lieve that a witness would be subject to physical or eco- nomic harm if his identity is revealed. See Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 88 S.Ct. 269, 19 L.Ed.2d 305 (1967). The language ‘‘by the judge alone’’ is not meant to be inconsistent with Xxxxxxxx v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969). In Xxxxxxxx the court points out that there may be appropriate oc- casions for the trial judge to decide questions relating to pretrial disclosure. See Xxxxxxxx v. United States, 394 U.S. at 182 n. 14, 89 S.Ct. 961. Subdivision (d)(2) is a restatement of part of old rule 16(g) and (d). Old subdivision (f) of rule 16 dealing with time of mo- tions is dropped because rule 12(c) provides the judge with authority to set the time for the making of pre- trial motions including requests for discovery. Rule 12 also prescribes the consequences which follow from a failure to make a pretrial motion at the time fixed by the court. See rule 12(f). NOTES OF COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARYNotes of Committee on the Judiciary, HOUSE REPORT NOHouse Report No. 94–247; 1975 AMENDMENTAmendment

Superior Court of Nevada County. supra, and People x. Xxxxx, supra. The defendant has the same option as does the government if it is believed that disclosure of the identity of a witness may subject that witness to harm or a threat of harm. The defendant can ask for a protective order under subdivision (d)(1) or can take a deposition in accordance with the terms of rule 15. Subdivision (b)(2) is unchanged, appearing as the last sentence of subdivision (c) of old rule 16. Subdivision (b)(3) provides that the defendant’s fail- ure to introduce evidence or call witnesses shall not be admissible in evidence against him. In states which re- quire pretrial disclosure of witnesses’ identity, the prosecution is not allowed to comment upon the de- fendant’s failure to call a listed witness. See X’Xxxxxx v. State, 31 Wis.2d 684, 143 N.W.2d 489 (1966); People x. Xxxxxxx, 6 N.Y.2d 853, 188 N.Y.S.2d 559, 160 N.E.2d 91 Page 85 TITLE 18, APPENDIX—RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Rule 16 (1959); and State x. Xxxxx, 73 Ohio App. 182, 55 N.E.2d 430 (1943). This is not, however, intended to abrogate the government’s right to comment generally upon the de- fendant’s failure to call witnesses in an appropriate case, other than the defendant’s failure to testify. Subdivision (c) is a restatement of part of old rule 16(g). Subdivision (d)(1) deals with the protective order. Al- though the rule does not attempt to indicate when a protective order should be entered, it is obvious that one would be appropriate where there is reason to be- lieve that a witness would be subject to physical or eco- nomic harm if his identity is revealed. See Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 88 S.Ct. 269, 19 L.Ed.2d 305 (1967). The language ‘‘by the judge alone’’ is not meant to be inconsistent with Xxxxxxxx v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969). In Xxxxxxxx the court points out that there may be appropriate oc- casions for the trial judge to decide questions relating to pretrial disclosure. See Xxxxxxxx v. United States, 394 U.S. at 182 n. 14, 89 S.Ct. 961. Subdivision (d)(2) is a restatement of part of old rule 16(g) and (d). Old subdivision (f) of rule 16 dealing with time of mo- tions is dropped because rule 12(c) provides the judge with authority to set the time for the making of pre- trial motions including requests for discovery. Rule 12 also prescribes the consequences which follow from a failure to make a pretrial motion at the time fixed by the court. See rule 12(f). NOTES OF COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARYNotes of Committee on the Judiciary, HOUSE REPORT NOHouse Report No. 94–247; 1975 AMENDMENTAmendment