Wikipedia has a link to an archived press release, dated June 30, 2011, announcing that the case had been settled out of court.
I didn't find any further details, but that's not surprising because such settlements typically include a confidentiality agreement. It's likely that Hogan received some sort of payment, but there's no way to know how much.
A judge has the authority to determine what law applies to a case and to instruct the jury accordingly, and also has the authority to determine which evidence is admissible.
Presentation of a defense, in practice, involves presentation of evidence supporting a legal theory.
In order to be admissible in evidence in an evidentiary hearing or trial, the ...
Yes there has
At common law you cannot be both a plaintiff and a defendant.
However, statute law can allow this - either intentionally or unintentionally. An example is Barbara Bagley v. Barbara Bagley, 2016 WL 6299507 (Utah 2016).
Because you used the Law & Order example, I'll assume you're talking about a criminal case in the United States.
No, the witness may not refuse to answer, because yes, there is a legal basis for requiring a person to read something out loud. The point of a subpoena is that it legally compels you to appear and testify, and to testify fully and truthfully ...
Could the person on the stand refuse?
Yes. The witness may refuse to read it aloud, which does not mean he cannot be compelled to do so. The witness may object on grounds you mention (prejudice) only if he is the defendant. Either way, the judge will make a decision on how that evidence is to be presented to the jury.
Regardless of who reads the evidence, ...