California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Izazaga v. Superior Court, 285 Cal.Rptr. 231, 54 Cal.3d 356, 815 P.2d 304 (Cal. 1991):
The relative safety involved in disclosing an alibi defense to be used at trial stands in stark contrast to other forms of pretrial witness disclosure that will necessarily include the admission of incriminating evidence. For instance, a defendant, who anticipates calling a witness who will testify that the defendant committed a killing in self-defense, is faced with the choice of either providing the state with perhaps the sole witness to the killing or foregoing use of the witness if the defendant instead chooses to test the state's ability to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not sufficient to assert that compelling a defendant to provide such a witness furthers the courts' truth-finding mission; Estelle v. Smith, supra, 451 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 1866, is absolutely clear in its insistence the state's sole responsibility to establish the case against a defendant without requiring that defendant's complicity. 1
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.