In a criminal trial, the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees that the accused has the right to a "compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor." Meaning that a person charged with a crime can force other people to testify in his defense if he thinks it will help his case, and the witness's refusal to do so is itself a crime in its own merit.
Does the prosecution enjoy the same privilege?
Let's say the district attorney wants to call a witness who they believe has relevant information about a crime to testify against a defendant. Let's assume the following hypothetical scenario:
- The witness has no physical evidence or documents to turn over, so there's nothing to subpoena; their testimony would be based solely on their memory, knowledge, or perceptions.
- The witness is not implicated in the crime (or any other crime for that matter), so there are no 5th Amendment concerns over self-incrimination.
- The witness has no value to the defense's case, so their testimony could only harm, not help the defendant.
- The witness, for whatever reason, refuses to testify.
Can the government compel witnesses to testify against the accused in the same way the accused can compel witnesses to testify in their defense?
Would the reason for the witness's refusal matter? If the witness had a credible fear for their safety, it would be one thing. But what if the witness had ethical objections -- like maybe they just don't want to help the government convict a person for something they don't believe should be illegal in the first place?