The state does not violate the rule from the 1929 Connecticut Supreme Court case of State v. Guilfoyle by failing to call a witness when the defendant is aware of the witness and the potential substance of the witness' testimony and could take action to procure the testimony of the witness.
State v. Fernandez
Connecticut Appellate Court
December 3, 2012
This article requires premium access
This article requires premium access to Connecticut Law Tribune. Please sign in or subscribe to read the full text.