Sequestering Witnesses

At a party’s request the court may order witnesses sequestered so that they cannot learn of other witnesses’ testimony. Or the court may do so on its own. But this rule does not authorize sequestering: (a) a party who is a natural person; (b) an officer or employee of a party that is not a natural person (including the Commonwealth) after being designated as the party’s representative by its attorney; (c) a person whose presence a party shows to be essential to presenting the party’s claim or defense; or (d) a person authorized by statute or rule to be present. Comment Pa.R.E. 615 differs from F.R.E. 615 in that the word ‘‘sequestering’’ is used instead of the word ‘‘excluding’’, and the rule is discretionary not mandatory. Both of these are consistent with prior Pennsylvania law. See Commonwealth v. Albrecht , 510 Pa. 603, 511 A.2d 764 (1986). Pa.R.E. 615 uses the term ‘‘learn of’’ rather than the word ‘‘hear.’’ This indicates that the court’s order may prohibit witnesses from using other means of learning of the testimony of other witnesses. Pa.R.E. 615(b) adds the parenthetical ‘‘(including the Commonwealth).’’ Pa.R.E 615(d) differs from the Federal Rule in that it adds the words ‘‘or rule.’’ This includes persons such as the guardian of a minor, see Pa.R.C.P. No. 2027, and the guardian of an incapacitated person, see Pa.R.C.P. No. 2053. The trial court has discretion in choosing a remedy for violation of a sequestration order. See Commonwealth v. Smith , 464 Pa. 314, 346 A.2d 757 (1975). Remedies include ordering a mistrial, forbidding the testimony of the offending witness, or an instruction to the jury. Commonwealth v. Scott , 496 Pa. 78, 436 A.2d 161 (1981). Official Note Adopted May 8, 1998, effective October 1, 1998; rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective March 18, 2013. Committee Explanatory Reports : Final Report explaining the January 17, 2013 rescission and replacement published with the Court’s Order at 43 Pa.B. 651 (February 2, 2013). Source The provisions of this Rule 615 rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. Immediately preceding text appears at serial page (254221). (a) a party who is a natural person; (b) an officer or employee of a party that is not a natural person (including the Commonwealth) after being designated as the party’s representative by its attorney; (c) a person whose presence a party shows to be essential to presenting the party’s claim or defense; or (d) a person authorized by statute or rule to be present. Comment Pa.R.E. 615 differs from F.R.E. 615 in that the word ‘‘sequestering’’ is used instead of the word ‘‘excluding’’, and the rule is discretionary not mandatory. Both of these are consistent with prior Pennsylvania law. See Commonwealth v. Albrecht , 510 Pa. 603, 511 A.2d 764 (1986). Pa.R.E. 615 uses the term ‘‘learn of’’ rather than the word ‘‘hear.’’ This indicates that the court’s order may prohibit witnesses from using other means of learning of the testimony of other witnesses. Pa.R.E. 615(b) adds the parenthetical ‘‘(including the Commonwealth).’’ Pa.R.E 615(d) differs from the Federal Rule in that it adds the words ‘‘or rule.’’ This includes persons such as the guardian of a minor, see Pa.R.C.P. No. 2027, and the guardian of an incapacitated person, see Pa.R.C.P. No. 2053. The trial court has discretion in choosing a remedy for violation of a sequestration order. See Commonwealth v. Smith , 464 Pa. 314, 346 A.2d 757 (1975). Remedies include ordering a mistrial, forbidding the testimony of the offending witness, or an instruction to the jury. Commonwealth v. Scott , 496 Pa. 78, 436 A.2d 161 (1981). Official Note Adopted May 8, 1998, effective October 1, 1998; rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective March 18, 2013. Committee Explanatory Reports : Final Report explaining the January 17, 2013 rescission and replacement published with the Court’s Order at 43 Pa.B. 651 (February 2, 2013). Source The provisions of this Rule 615 rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. Immediately preceding text appears at serial page (254221). (b) an officer or employee of a party that is not a natural person (including the Commonwealth) after being designated as the party’s representative by its attorney; (c) a person whose presence a party shows to be essential to presenting the party’s claim or defense; or (d) a person authorized by statute or rule to be present. Comment Pa.R.E. 615 differs from F.R.E. 615 in that the word ‘‘sequestering’’ is used instead of the word ‘‘excluding’’, and the rule is discretionary not mandatory. Both of these are consistent with prior Pennsylvania law. See Commonwealth v. Albrecht , 510 Pa. 603, 511 A.2d 764 (1986). Pa.R.E. 615 uses the term ‘‘learn of’’ rather than the word ‘‘hear.’’ This indicates that the court’s order may prohibit witnesses from using other means of learning of the testimony of other witnesses. Pa.R.E. 615(b) adds the parenthetical ‘‘(including the Commonwealth).’’ Pa.R.E 615(d) differs from the Federal Rule in that it adds the words ‘‘or rule.’’ This includes persons such as the guardian of a minor, see Pa.R.C.P. No. 2027, and the guardian of an incapacitated person, see Pa.R.C.P. No. 2053. The trial court has discretion in choosing a remedy for violation of a sequestration order. See Commonwealth v. Smith , 464 Pa. 314, 346 A.2d 757 (1975). Remedies include ordering a mistrial, forbidding the testimony of the offending witness, or an instruction to the jury. Commonwealth v. Scott , 496 Pa. 78, 436 A.2d 161 (1981). Official Note Adopted May 8, 1998, effective October 1, 1998; rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective March 18, 2013. Committee Explanatory Reports : Final Report explaining the January 17, 2013 rescission and replacement published with the Court’s Order at 43 Pa.B. 651 (February 2, 2013). Source The provisions of this Rule 615 rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. Immediately preceding text appears at serial page (254221). (c) a person whose presence a party shows to be essential to presenting the party’s claim or defense; or (d) a person authorized by statute or rule to be present. Comment Pa.R.E. 615 differs from F.R.E. 615 in that the word ‘‘sequestering’’ is used instead of the word ‘‘excluding’’, and the rule is discretionary not mandatory. Both of these are consistent with prior Pennsylvania law. See Commonwealth v. Albrecht , 510 Pa. 603, 511 A.2d 764 (1986). Pa.R.E. 615 uses the term ‘‘learn of’’ rather than the word ‘‘hear.’’ This indicates that the court’s order may prohibit witnesses from using other means of learning of the testimony of other witnesses. Pa.R.E. 615(b) adds the parenthetical ‘‘(including the Commonwealth).’’ Pa.R.E 615(d) differs from the Federal Rule in that it adds the words ‘‘or rule.’’ This includes persons such as the guardian of a minor, see Pa.R.C.P. No. 2027, and the guardian of an incapacitated person, see Pa.R.C.P. No. 2053. The trial court has discretion in choosing a remedy for violation of a sequestration order. See Commonwealth v. Smith , 464 Pa. 314, 346 A.2d 757 (1975). Remedies include ordering a mistrial, forbidding the testimony of the offending witness, or an instruction to the jury. Commonwealth v. Scott , 496 Pa. 78, 436 A.2d 161 (1981). Official Note Adopted May 8, 1998, effective October 1, 1998; rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective March 18, 2013. Committee Explanatory Reports : Final Report explaining the January 17, 2013 rescission and replacement published with the Court’s Order at 43 Pa.B. 651 (February 2, 2013). Source The provisions of this Rule 615 rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. Immediately preceding text appears at serial page (254221). (d) a person authorized by statute or rule to be present. Comment Pa.R.E. 615 differs from F.R.E. 615 in that the word ‘‘sequestering’’ is used instead of the word ‘‘excluding’’, and the rule is discretionary not mandatory. Both of these are consistent with prior Pennsylvania law. See Commonwealth v. Albrecht , 510 Pa. 603, 511 A.2d 764 (1986). Pa.R.E. 615 uses the term ‘‘learn of’’ rather than the word ‘‘hear.’’ This indicates that the court’s order may prohibit witnesses from using other means of learning of the testimony of other witnesses. Pa.R.E. 615(b) adds the parenthetical ‘‘(including the Commonwealth).’’ Pa.R.E 615(d) differs from the Federal Rule in that it adds the words ‘‘or rule.’’ This includes persons such as the guardian of a minor, see Pa.R.C.P. No. 2027, and the guardian of an incapacitated person, see Pa.R.C.P. No. 2053. The trial court has discretion in choosing a remedy for violation of a sequestration order. See Commonwealth v. Smith , 464 Pa. 314, 346 A.2d 757 (1975). Remedies include ordering a mistrial, forbidding the testimony of the offending witness, or an instruction to the jury. Commonwealth v. Scott , 496 Pa. 78, 436 A.2d 161 (1981). Official Note Adopted May 8, 1998, effective October 1, 1998; rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective March 18, 2013. Committee Explanatory Reports : Final Report explaining the January 17, 2013 rescission and replacement published with the Court’s Order at 43 Pa.B. 651 (February 2, 2013). Source The provisions of this Rule 615 rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. Immediately preceding text appears at serial page (254221). Comment Pa.R.E. 615 differs from F.R.E. 615 in that the word ‘‘sequestering’’ is used instead of the word ‘‘excluding’’, and the rule is discretionary not mandatory. Both of these are consistent with prior Pennsylvania law. See Commonwealth v. Albrecht , 510 Pa. 603, 511 A.2d 764 (1986). Pa.R.E. 615 uses the term ‘‘learn of’’ rather than the word ‘‘hear.’’ This indicates that the court’s order may prohibit witnesses from using other means of learning of the testimony of other witnesses. Pa.R.E. 615(b) adds the parenthetical ‘‘(including the Commonwealth).’’ Pa.R.E 615(d) differs from the Federal Rule in that it adds the words ‘‘or rule.’’ This includes persons such as the guardian of a minor, see Pa.R.C.P. No. 2027, and the guardian of an incapacitated person, see Pa.R.C.P. No. 2053. The trial court has discretion in choosing a remedy for violation of a sequestration order. See Commonwealth v. Smith , 464 Pa. 314, 346 A.2d 757 (1975). Remedies include ordering a mistrial, forbidding the testimony of the offending witness, or an instruction to the jury. Commonwealth v. Scott , 496 Pa. 78, 436 A.2d 161 (1981). Official Note Adopted May 8, 1998, effective October 1, 1998; rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective March 18, 2013. Committee Explanatory Reports : Final Report explaining the January 17, 2013 rescission and replacement published with the Court’s Order at 43 Pa.B. 651 (February 2, 2013). Source The provisions of this Rule 615 rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. Immediately preceding text appears at serial page (254221). Pa.R.E. 615(b) adds the parenthetical ‘‘(including the Commonwealth).’’ Pa.R.E 615(d) differs from the Federal Rule in that it adds the words ‘‘or rule.’’ This includes persons such as the guardian of a minor, see Pa.R.C.P. No. 2027, and the guardian of an incapacitated person, see Pa.R.C.P. No. 2053. The trial court has discretion in choosing a remedy for violation of a sequestration order. See Commonwealth v. Smith , 464 Pa. 314, 346 A.2d 757 (1975). Remedies include ordering a mistrial, forbidding the testimony of the offending witness, or an instruction to the jury. Commonwealth v. Scott , 496 Pa. 78, 436 A.2d 161 (1981). Official Note Adopted May 8, 1998, effective October 1, 1998; rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective March 18, 2013. Committee Explanatory Reports : Final Report explaining the January 17, 2013 rescission and replacement published with the Court’s Order at 43 Pa.B. 651 (February 2, 2013). Source The provisions of this Rule 615 rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. Immediately preceding text appears at serial page (254221). Pa.R.E 615(d) differs from the Federal Rule in that it adds the words ‘‘or rule.’’ This includes persons such as the guardian of a minor, see Pa.R.C.P. No. 2027, and the guardian of an incapacitated person, see Pa.R.C.P. No. 2053. The trial court has discretion in choosing a remedy for violation of a sequestration order. See Commonwealth v. Smith , 464 Pa. 314, 346 A.2d 757 (1975). Remedies include ordering a mistrial, forbidding the testimony of the offending witness, or an instruction to the jury. Commonwealth v. Scott , 496 Pa. 78, 436 A.2d 161 (1981). Official Note Adopted May 8, 1998, effective October 1, 1998; rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective March 18, 2013. Committee Explanatory Reports : Final Report explaining the January 17, 2013 rescission and replacement published with the Court’s Order at 43 Pa.B. 651 (February 2, 2013). Source The provisions of this Rule 615 rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. Immediately preceding text appears at serial page (254221). The trial court has discretion in choosing a remedy for violation of a sequestration order. See Commonwealth v. Smith , 464 Pa. 314, 346 A.2d 757 (1975). Remedies include ordering a mistrial, forbidding the testimony of the offending witness, or an instruction to the jury. Commonwealth v. Scott , 496 Pa. 78, 436 A.2d 161 (1981). Official Note Adopted May 8, 1998, effective October 1, 1998; rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective March 18, 2013. Committee Explanatory Reports : Final Report explaining the January 17, 2013 rescission and replacement published with the Court’s Order at 43 Pa.B. 651 (February 2, 2013). Source The provisions of this Rule 615 rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. Immediately preceding text appears at serial page (254221). Official Note Adopted May 8, 1998, effective October 1, 1998; rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective March 18, 2013. Committee Explanatory Reports : Final Report explaining the January 17, 2013 rescission and replacement published with the Court’s Order at 43 Pa.B. 651 (February 2, 2013). Source The provisions of this Rule 615 rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. Immediately preceding text appears at serial page (254221). Adopted May 8, 1998, effective October 1, 1998; rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective March 18, 2013. Committee Explanatory Reports : Final Report explaining the January 17, 2013 rescission and replacement published with the Court’s Order at 43 Pa.B. 651 (February 2, 2013). Source The provisions of this Rule 615 rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. Immediately preceding text appears at serial page (254221). Committee Explanatory Reports : Final Report explaining the January 17, 2013 rescission and replacement published with the Court’s Order at 43 Pa.B. 651 (February 2, 2013). Source The provisions of this Rule 615 rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. Immediately preceding text appears at serial page (254221). Final Report explaining the January 17, 2013 rescission and replacement published with the Court’s Order at 43 Pa.B. 651 (February 2, 2013). Source The provisions of this Rule 615 rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. Immediately preceding text appears at serial page (254221). Source The provisions of this Rule 615 rescinded and replaced January 17, 2013, effective in sixty days, 43 Pa.B. 620. Immediately preceding text appears at serial page (254221).