Can a Victim Be Required to Testify Against a Criminal if There is Video Evidence

My question involves criminal law for the state of: California
This was an attempted armed robbery where the suspects had a weapon and demanded my keys and wallet. I drove off really quick with them chasing my car. The entire event was caught on camera. I made a mistake by reporting the crime. A detective called me down to the station recorded me and had me attempt to identify the suspects which I had a hard time doing since it happened so fast, but I thought that was the end of it especially since it was clearly caught on a camera mounted on a building about 12 ft from my car which clearly revealed the suspects. However I got a call from the detective which left me a voicemail to tell me he had a subpoena for me to testify in court. I've been in therapy each week even before this happened to me since i suffer from schizotypal disorder and anxiety. The idea that I may be forced into a court room full of people and to have to testify against the people who want me dead looking at me has caused a severe amount of stress, I haven't been able to eat since I've gotten that voicemail. I am terrified and feel that this is unfair, I should have the right to have nothing else to do with this case, but it seems as if I don't. From what I read online far too much is that Its simple, You go to court and testify or go to jail, your choice. I also read something regarding quash but it doesn't guarantee that the judge will allow it. Please inform me of my rights, what can I do besides suicide to get me out of this crap that they are trying to put me threw?

You can't be compelled to testify against yourself. You can be compelled to testify against others.

If you are that upset about it speak to the prosecutor and explain your situation.

I don't know why you say you made a mistake reporting the crime.

Giving the police a statement and identifying those that committed the crime are not the same as testifying in court. You need to testify so you can be cross examined by the defense.

A defendant has a right to confront their accuser in court.

It says so right here in the 6th amendment of the US Constitution;

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

A defendant has a right to confront their accuser in court.

It says so right here in the 6th amendment of the US Constitution;

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

---

While that’s true, that is not what prompted the prosecution’s subpoena. The sixth amendment right to confront one’s accuser means that the defendant has the right to cross-examine the state’s witnesses against him/her. The state need not call any particular witness if it chooses not to do so, but then that person’s testimony won’t be heard by the court (jury) and cannot be used against him.

Instead, the prosecution is issuing the subpoena because he/she wants the victim’s testimony to help make the case against the defendant. The reason that the witness may be compelled to testify pursuant to the subpoena is the state law that grants the power of subpoena and provides for the sanctions for those who do not comply with them. In other words, the witness here is not compelled by the Constitution to testify, but rather by the state law regarding subpoenas. Once the witness gets on the stand to testify, the defendant’s sixth amendment Constitutional right to confront his accuser will kick-in, allowing his lawyer to cross-examine the witness.

It was a mistake to report the crime because its caused nothing but more problems. This was an attempted armed robbery caught on camera. They were not able to take anything. If I would have simply went about my business after i thankfully got away from the suspects instead of reporting it, I wouldn't be going threw this crap now. It seems to me that even when your a victim of a crime that once you report it, you then change from victim to a suspect even when its caught on camera.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mercy&Grace

---

Giving the police a statement and identifying those that committed the crime are not the same as testifying in court. You need to testify so you can be cross examined by the defense.

---

But this was caught on Video. The officer showed me the video evidence after he informed me that I picked out the wrong people from the pictures he showed me. What defense do they have over CLEAR EVIDENCE!? What more can I say?!! I Didn't look at the suspects long enough to even remember, but the video has them, he even zoomed in on their faces! Two clearly hispanic males running up to my car with weapons, then me speeding off, What is the need of a cross examination when the video in the detectives possession clearly shows the entire event?! The Video evidence knows more than I do! This is INSANE

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

While that’s true, that is not what prompted the prosecution’s subpoena. The sixth amendment right to confront one’s accuser means that the defendant has the right to cross-examine the state’s witnesses against him/her. The state need not call any particular witness if it chooses not to do so, but then that person’s testimony won’t be heard by the court (jury) and cannot be used against him.

Instead, the prosecution is issuing the subpoena because he/she wants the victim’s testimony to help make the case against the defendant. The reason that the witness may be compelled to testify pursuant to the subpoena is the state law that grants the power of subpoena and provides for the sanctions for those who do not comply with them. In other words, the witness here is not compelled by the Constitution to testify, but rather by the state law regarding subpoenas. Once the witness gets on the stand to testify, the defendant’s sixth amendment Constitutional right to confront his accuser will kick-in, allowing his lawyer to cross-examine the witness.

---

The op must testify to the crime itself taking place and must identify the defendents in court unless there is independent proof of the crime and identities. The video sounds like it supports the op's claims but it cannot testify to the actual crime taking place. You need a victim in most cases.



So, with the op being the accuser and only witness (I presume) the requirement of the op testifying would not be optional.

If there is video evidence and the defendants believe that the victim is going to testify, the odds of a plea bargain go up significantly. If the defendants believe that the victim is not going to show up in court, then they're more likely to push for a trial.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

The op must testify to the crime itself taking place and must identify the defendents in court unless there is independent proof of the crime and identities. The video sounds like it supports the op's claims but it cannot testify to the actual crime taking place. You need a victim in most cases.

So, with the op being the accuser and only witness (I presume) the requirement of the op testifying would not be optional.

---

It may indeed be the case that the prosecution needs the victim to make its case. But it is still the case that victim’s attendance at the trial is not compelled by the 6th Amendment. It is compelled by the state law that empowers subpoenas.

Quote:

---

Quoting Taxing Matters

---

It may indeed be the case that the prosecution needs the victim to make its case. But it is still the case that victim’s attendance at the trial is not compelled by the 6th Amendment. It is compelled by the state law that empowers subpoenas.

---

I'm not disagreeing with you. I've jumped ahead a few spaces in my statement as to why, if the state wants to prosecute the case, the 6th does apply. The op is the accuser. (Again presuming there are no other victims) unless the op testifies to the crime that took place, the state cannot prosecute them.

Or inversely;

(Again, presuming op is the only victim) if op does not testify, the state cannot prove a crime (or at least the attempted carjacking) took place. That means while the 6th does not and cannot compel a person to testify, in the practical sense it does exactly that.



But if if you refer back to the op's original post, he made these statements;

I should have the right to have nothing else to do with this case

Please inform me of my rights,



it is because of the defendants 6th amend rights op must testify.

What if the next person wasn't as lucky and you were and they were killed or severely injured? Or what is the last person they tried to rob didn't want the problems so they said nothing ? If they had reported it, that could have prevented you from going through what you did. If they had robbed you or shot, would you feel better about testifying ?

A video tape can't be cross examined. Other evidence strengthens the case. The victims testimony speaks louder than other edivence alone.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mercy&Grace

---

What if the next person wasn't as lucky and you were and they were killed or severely injured? Or what is the last person they tried to rob didn't want the problems so they said nothing ? If they had reported it, that could have prevented you from going through what you did. If they had robbed you or shot, would you feel better about testifying ?

A video tape can't be cross examined. Other evidence strengthens the case. The victims testimony speaks louder than other edivence alone.

---

I have no testimony. Its not my fault some people randomly decided to rob me. You are forgetting I did nothing wrong. I don't deserve this. Its people like you that refuse to understand mental illness. Your assuming I'm just some regular guy who's afraid of testifying when you have no clue what ive gone threw, and what I deal with on a day to day basis. Testimony speaks, but what about a person born autistic and later diagnosed with schizotypal being forced against will to attend a court room full of people along with criminals that want them dead?. It looks like My only way out is death or jail. So stressful, Anytime you hear on the news about a "Mentally Ill" person that finally lost it and hurt themselves or someone else, don't you dare blame them. Think back at a time like this and what types of things are forced upon us. I should not be forced to go and testify and be cross examined to try and prove that im a liar when all I did was report a crime that was caught on camera! I don't know anymore than the camera!

Quote:

---

Quoting skizo333

---

I have no testimony.

---

Of course you do.

Quote:

---

Quoting skizo333

---

...being forced against will to attend a court room full of people along with criminals that want them dead?

---

Maybe you're being overly dramatic.

Contrary to what you see on TV and in the movies, few people who testify in court are killed or injured by the people they testify against.

You keep talking about your rights, as if you are the only one who has them. The people on the other side of the aisle also have rights, and one of those rights is to face their accusers and to cross-examine any witnesses. You are a witness. They can't cross-examine a video recording.

You do have testimony. Your description of what happened is testimony.

What does your doctor say about it?

Quote:

---

Quoting skizo333

---

I have no testimony. I don't know anymore than the camera!

---

You do know more than the camera. The camera preserved images. It cannot testify as to what happened; you can. If it was up to only the evidence the camera holds, the defendants will walk free.

I think you are totally missing the point here. Yeah, they have video, but your testimony makes the video evidence stronger. Your refusal to testify might mean these guys go free. They they'll try to rob someone else. Maybe that person gets shot.

Work with your doctor or therapist about the best way to prepare yourself. You might benefit from a variety of therapies to get you through this tough time.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

Contrary to what you see on TV and in the movies, few people who testify in court are killed or injured by the people they testify against.

You keep talking about your rights, as if you are the only one who has them. The people on the other side of the aisle also have rights, and one of those rights is to face their accusers and to cross-examine any witnesses. You are a witness. They can't cross-examine a video recording.

You do have testimony. Your description of what happened is testimony.

What does your doctor say about it?

---

Common Sense. Again There is Video Evidence! Yea of course I know they have rights obviously if they didn't they wouldn't have been able to do what they did, or do you mean they have a right to make up a lie to get them out of this??, According to the cop, the guys that did this are known gang members, he was even able to zoom in on the facial tattoos, and inform me more about these people than I knew. This has nothing to do with what I see on TV and in Movies. This has to be with me being mentally unstable to withstand this crap.

Quote:

---

Quoting skizo333

---

Common Sense. Again There is Video Evidence! Yea of course I know they have rights obviously if they didn't they wouldn't have been able to do what they did, or do you mean they have a right to make up a lie to get them out of this??, According to the cop, the guys that did this are known gang members, he was even able to zoom in on the facial tattoos, and inform me more about these people than I knew. This has nothing to do with what I see on TV and in Movies. This has to be with me being mentally unstable to withstand this crap.

---

Ok, very simple; without your testimony there is no crime. Regardless what the camera recorded, unless somebody testifies it was a criminal act, it isn't. Your statement to the police is not admissible as evidence against the defendants.

Quote:

---

Quoting geek

---

I think you are totally missing the point here. Yeah, they have video, but your testimony makes the video evidence stronger. Your refusal to testify might mean these guys go free. They they'll try to rob someone else. Maybe that person gets shot.

Work with your doctor or therapist about the best way to prepare yourself. You might benefit from a variety of therapies to get you through this tough time.

---

I worked with my therapist and doctor for months to try and prepare me for a disability hearing before this robbery happened. We tried very very hard but I just couldn't do it. Now you tell me I have to go in a room full of people, including the ones who wanted to hurt me and be cross examined about what happened on the video without me getting anything out of it, instead of a room full of people who could have possibly given me 40k just by answering a few questions regarding my extensive medical records. Think about that for a second, and maybe you can understand my turmoil. By the way, the area I stopped to get gas in was high crime ridden. Rather they walk free or not, It wont change what goes on in that area.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Ok, very simple; without your testimony there is no crime. Regardless what the camera recorded, unless somebody testifies it was a criminal act, it isn't. Your statement to the police is not admissible as evidence against the defendants.

---

Ok I understand that. But you have to agree that its insane to let criminals walk free, but punish the victim for not agreeing to go to court. It's an attempted robbery on camera, but I have to be the one punished simply because I cant further participate. It's like I'm being punished for their crimes.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

You do know more than the camera. The camera preserved images. It cannot testify as to what happened; you can. If it was up to only the evidence the camera holds, the defendants will walk free.

---

How could i possibly know more than the camera when I sped off right when the robbery was happening? The camera showed their faces, tattoos and focused on them loitering in front of the gas station for a very long time. Explain that to me please. Furthermore are you saying that If a security camera captured someone with distinctive facial tattoos killing someone, with no other witnesses other than the clear evidence video, that they would walk free? On top of the fact that they were picked up at the exact location of the killing?

Quote:

---

Quoting skizo333

---

Ok I understand that. But you have to agree that its insane to let criminals walk free, but punish the victim for not agreeing to go to court. It's an attempted robbery on camera, but I have to be the one punished simply because I cant further participate. It's like I'm being punished for their crimes.

---

i understand much better than you will ever realize. You have my sympathy but even with that, this is how our court system works.

if the prosecutors office has a victims advocates office I suggest you contact them an explain your situation. If no advocates office, then contact the prosecutor directly. They may be able to help ease your concerns.

If your doctor believes it is harmful for you to testify he could write a letter or even better, contact the prosecutor himself.

Quote:

---

Quoting Highwayman

---

Of course you do.




Maybe you're being overly dramatic.

---

Maybe you just need to put yourself in my shoes. That's very easy for you to sit back and say. Furthermore that's not being very helpful. I came here to be helped not ridiculed. So if you can't help me please keep the helpless side comments to yourself.

I think you are overreacting to what people are telling you here. You weren't being attacked.

I haven't seen the video. Without your testimony, a clever defense might make what initially looks like a robbery, appear to be something else. Maybe you were the robber. Maybe this was a drug deal gone bad. See where I'm going with this?

Ten different people can look at a video and come up with ten different explanations.

But it's up to you. Call the prosecutor and the victim advocate in the morning and see what the options are. Maybe closed circuit tv is an option but nobody can promise you.

Quote:

---

Quoting geek

---

I think you are overreacting to what people are telling you here. You weren't being attacked.

I haven't seen the video. Without your testimony, a clever defense might make what initially looks like a robbery, appear to be something else. Maybe you were the robber. Maybe this was a drug deal gone bad. See where I'm going with this?

Ten different people can look at a video and come up with ten different explanations.

But it's up to you. Call the prosecutor and the victim advocate in the morning and see what the options are. Maybe closed circuit tv is an option but nobody can promise you.

---

You haven't seen the video, so your trying to make up one in your head, and for you to think people would come up with different explanations or to even see me as a robber shows that your imagination is way off. Its clear as day, I watched it. Ive already met with the detective and hes aware since its obvious on the video that it wasn't a drug deal gone bad. good grief this is expert law not prejudice law.

Quote:

---

Quoting geek

---

\You weren't being attacked.
.

---

That doesn't matter when the camera clearly shows the weapons they were attempting to use.

Quote:

---

Quoting skizo333

---

You haven't seen the video, so your trying to make up one in your head, and for you to think people would come up with different explanations or to even see me as a robber shows that your imagination is way off. Its clear as day, I watched it. Ive already met with the detective and hes aware since its obvious on the video that it wasn't a drug deal gone bad. good grief this is expert law not prejudice law.



That doesn't matter when the camera clearly shows the weapons they were attempting to use.

---

Geek was trying to point out scenarios that could be possible given only the video. Of course it's guessing on our part but the fact is; without your testimony, the defendants story becomes the only explanation for what is seen.
In our courts the dedendent doesn't have to prove themselves not guilty. The prosecution has to prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Quote:

---

Quoting skizo333

---

It was a mistake to report the crime because its caused nothing but more problems. This was an attempted armed robbery caught on camera. They were not able to take anything. If I would have simply went about my business after i thankfully got away from the suspects instead of reporting it, I wouldn't be going threw this crap now. It seems to me that even when your a victim of a crime that once you report it, you then change from victim to a suspect even when its caught on camera.



But this was caught on Video. The officer showed me the video evidence after he informed me that I picked out the wrong people from the pictures he showed me. What defense do they have over CLEAR EVIDENCE!? What more can I say?!! I Didn't look at the suspects long enough to even remember, but the video has them, he even zoomed in on their faces! Two clearly hispanic males running up to my car with weapons, then me speeding off, What is the need of a cross examination when the video in the detectives possession clearly shows the entire event?! The Video evidence knows more than I do! This is INSANE

---

Why do you think you are a suspect? Victims get subpoenaed quite often to testify. It doesn't matter that it was caught on video. The state is going to want all the witnesses and evidence it can to have a case against the defendant. You really don't think that there are defense lawyers who have gotten their client a not guilty verdict even when there's clear evidence? Prosecutors screw up cases sometimes...and make it easy for the defense (*cough* OJ Simpson *cough*).

You did nothing wrong in reporting this and you aren't being treated as a suspect. Yes it's overwhelming to deal with the police and lawyers and court system. I know. I have dealt with the police a few times because of my ex husband. I got frustrated when they investigated him after the first time he hit me. I thought the same as you why did I bother? It was he said/she said and going nowhere so I told them in that case I didn't want to cooperate anymore and I was the only witness. They did drop it. I shouldn't have. Hindsight is 20/20.

The last time he ever put his hands on me, I called the cops immediately. He got arrested. I got a subpoena to testify at his preliminary hearing - but the day of the hearing he waived his right to a PH and ended up pleading guilty. So I didn't have to testify. I would have though. I had already talked to the county attorney a few days before going over everything.

You need to go talk to the prosecutor who is in charge of this case. Let them know how you feel and they will go through it with you.

Quote:

---

Quoting skizo333

---

Common Sense. Again There is Video Evidence! Yea of course I know they have rights obviously if they didn't they wouldn't have been able to do what they did, or do you mean they have a right to make up a lie to get them out of this??, According to the cop, the guys that did this are known gang members, he was even able to zoom in on the facial tattoos, and inform me more about these people than I knew. This has nothing to do with what I see on TV and in Movies. This has to be with me being mentally unstable to withstand this crap.

---

You are not even reading what people are telling you. At all. You need to talk to your doctor, therapist and the prosecutor to find a way to handle this. The prosecutor will find a way for you to testify and they will make sure in court you are safe.

When people are saying the accused rights - they have the right to defend themselves against an accusation. So they have a right to know who has accused them of a crime. Not that they have a right to try to rob someone. No one said that. They have a right to a trial. That's what they have a right to.

Your testimony PLUS the video will most likely seal the case against these men in order for them to be found guilty and sentenced.

You're the one who brought up TV and movies.

Quote:

---

Quoting skizo333

---

You haven't seen the video, so your trying to make up one in your head, and for you to think people would come up with different explanations or to even see me as a robber shows that your imagination is way off. Its clear as day, I watched it. Ive already met with the detective and hes aware since its obvious on the video that it wasn't a drug deal gone bad. good grief this is expert law not prejudice law.



That doesn't matter when the camera clearly shows the weapons they were attempting to use.

---

FFS you aren't listening to anyone. Geek even said "I haven't seen the video..." He is saying that a skilled defense attorney could take that video -if you don't testify - and convince a jury that it is not an armed robbery at all. That's how it works. Just because YOU think it's clear as day doesn't mean 12 people in the jury box will see it the same way as you especially if you don't testify.

No one is being prejudiced here. You're the one who is being prejudiced. If you don't want anyone's advice then stop posting and replying on here. Because you have been given pretty solid advice and you don't want to hear that.

Your option is to TALK TO THE VICTIM ADVOCATE OFFICE, YOUR DOCTOR, THERAPIST AND THE PROSECUTOR IN CHARGE OF THE CASE. I hate all caps but you just aren't getting it. You have all this at your disposal to find a safe way for you to testify and you refuse to do it.

Quote:

---

Quoting skizo333

---

Maybe you just need to put yourself in my shoes. That's very easy for you to sit back and say. Furthermore that's not being very helpful. I came here to be helped not ridiculed. So if you can't help me please keep the helpless side comments to yourself.

---

I wonder how you even function in everyday life if you can't get it together enough to get yourself through this.

You go to court, you testify, and you go home.

The melodrama is understood but this is something you have to do or will be compelled to do by the court. So I suggest you reconcile yourself to doing it and move on.

CAN you be "forced" to testify against your attacker even if there is video? Yes. WILL you be compelled to testify? Hard to say.

As was pointed out, when the state has a witness and a video, the defendant most often pleads out. But, if he does not, then the state might need your testimony to put the video into context or to affirm that it is a recording of the incident he or she witnessed. What is SEEN in a surveillance video may have differing interpretations. I have seen cases where video of an armed robbery looked conclusive, but the defense wanted the victim on the stand because, as it turned out, the "victim" was actually a conspirator!

The state has to get the video introduced as evidence and has to put it into context. This can often be best done through the victim.

Quote:

---

Quoting skizo333

---

You haven't seen the video, so your trying to make up one in your head, and for you to think people would come up with different explanations or to even see me as a robber shows that your imagination is way off. Its clear as day, I watched it. Ive already met with the detective and hes aware since its obvious on the video that it wasn't a drug deal gone bad. good grief this is expert law not prejudice law.

---

I had a feeling you would misunderstand what I said. I wasn't trying to suggest that you were guilty of something. What I was saying is that the defense could sow the seeds of doubt in the jury by suggesting that what they see on the video isn't what you say they are seeing. I don't know a better way of helping you understand. Sorry.

Quote:

---

That doesn't matter when the camera clearly shows the weapons they were attempting to use.

---

But the context is missing. All they will see are some people chasing you in your car with guns drawn, yes? You fill in the blanks, you provide the details.

Hopefully you made some phone calls today and found out what your options are.

Contact the DA's office and ask if they have a Victim's Advocate. Maybe if they can help prepare you with what to expect and go with you to court, it will make testifying easier.

Quote:

---

Quoting qwaspolk69

---

You are not even reading what people are telling you......

Your testimony PLUS the video will most likely seal the case against these men in order for them to be found guilty and sentenced.

You're the one who brought up TV and movies.

---

I feel that I'm a suspect based on what they can do to me for my non cooperation,
and actually I am NOT the one who brought up TV and movies, It looks like you are doing what your accusing me of. Not reading.

Quote:

---

Quoting skizo333

---

I feel that I'm a suspect based on what they can do to me for my non cooperation,
and actually I am NOT the one who brought up TV and movies, It looks like you are doing what your accusing me of. Not reading.

---

This thread is serving absolutely no purpose whatsoever at this point.

Really.

Quote:

---

Quoting budwad

---

I wonder how you even function in everyday life if you can't get it together enough to get yourself through this.
.

---

Your obviously not paying attention to what I am writing for you to make a ridiculous comment like that. Please PAY attention, and If you have nothing helpful to say then its simple, SAY NOTHING! Is it that hard? Your so busy looking for flaws, and ways to ridicule me you happened to look over what I covered regarding my day to day functions.

Quote:

---

Quoting skizo333

---

I feel that I'm a suspect based on what they can do to me for my non cooperation,
and actually I am NOT the one who brought up TV and movies, It looks like you are doing what your accusing me of. Not reading.

---

The state has a vested interest in getting violent criminals off of the street. That might mean you have to be uncomfortable for a bit so that the next victim of these thugs doesn't get hurt or killed. Their next victim may not be as lucky as you were.

All that evil needs is for decent people to do nothing.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

This thread is serving absolutely no purpose whatsoever at this point.

Really.

---

Neither is your ridiculous comment. If you feel that way, don't click on the thread, nobody's forcing you. I'm sure your a very very busy person.:)

Oh I see, you're too scared to testify but you feel big and bad enough to insult the people who are trying to help you. Interesting.

Go talk to your therapist or attorney, I don't think anyone here can help you further.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

All that evil needs is for decent people to do nothing.

---

Ditto

Quote:

---

Quoting skizo333

---

Neither is your ridiculous comment. If you feel that way, don't click on the thread, nobody's forcing you. I'm sure your a very very busy person.:)

---

Child, please.

Let me spell it out:

You want something this forum cannot give you. That means, "pssst ... you seem to be getting pissed off for no good reason and you don't seem to want to listen to the people here, so it's probably best for you to go elsewhere".

Now you can get the last word in, because we know you need to do that, and leave it at that.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

Child, please.

Let me spell it out:

You want something this forum cannot give you. That means, "pssst ... you seem to be getting pissed off for no good reason and you don't seem to want to listen to the people here, so it's probably best for you to go elsewhere".

Now you can get the last word in, because we know you need to do that, and leave it at that.

---

It's people disagreeing with each other about what they posted on this thread. So obviously it isn't a problem of me "listening" to what people say since people are saying different things. You on the other hand have offered no help other than a sassy useless comment. But as I say it seems your a very busy person with 34 thousand post. Maybe you should find a hobby besides going threw forums to sass people based on something that you know absolutely nothing about.

I am not sure where you are seeing disagreement.

You asked if the state can force you to testify. The answer to that is an unequivocal, "yes!" Whether the state WILL force you to testify or not is something we cannot answer. However, in CA we consider armed robbery to be a pretty darn serious criminal activity, so you can rest assured that the state will do all it can to pursue those criminals if they have a case at all.

As has also been told to you, the state will need your testimony to put any video into context. They will also need you to add statements, your level of fear or concern, etc. Depending on what these thugs are charged with, the elements may well include your being in fear for your safety. A video cannot speak for you and your impressions.

So, you can argue all you want. Legally, the state CAN compel you to testify. And, quite frankly, you should. As I mentioned previously, their next victims may not be as lucky as you.

Wow I understand your frustration indeed. In a nutshell. It would be helpful for you to testify. But it looks like its not an option due to your limitations. Therefor you have 3 options:
1.) Ignore/Avoid being Serviced
2.) File a motion to quash
3.) Go to trial and testify via CCTV.
I think your main concern is getting in trouble for not going to court. A voicemail is not a valid subpoena which means that you would not be required to attend since you haven't been actually served. You may ignore the calls but he may have a way of finding you at home/work etc. So if he is able to serve you then your down to the last two options. Btw I know it can be frustrating. I have a son with a condition similar to yours. Don't let the people on this forum aggravate you, most of them don't really know, and you also have to consider the internet trolls who have nothing better to do as well.. Hang in there sweety.