C) The eyewitness, the former co-defendant, and the desk officer, but not the investigating officer.
Unless an exception exists, the court must grant a party's motion to exclude a witness from the courtroom so that the party cannot hear the testimony of the other witnesses. A individual whose presence is crucial to the presenting of a party's case, such as the police officer in command of an ongoing criminal investigation, is an exception.
There is no exception for an eyewitness, a previous co-defendant, or an officer who testifies as to chain of custody, hence answer options A and B are false. In light of this, the defendant may ask to have these people removed from the courtroom.
Because it would unfairly exclude the investigating officer, whose presence is crucial to the presenting of the prosecution's case, answer choice D is inappropriate.
I understand the question you are looking for is this:
A defendant was charged with the sale of narcotics. At his trial, the prosecution planned on calling as witnesses the police officer who investigated the crime, an eyewitness to the crime, a desk officer to testify regarding chain of custody, and a former co-defendant who had reached a plea agreement with the prosecution. The defendant demanded, as a matter of right, that each of these individuals be excluded from the courtroom to prevent them from hearing the testimony of the other witnesses. The prosecution objected to removing any of these individuals from the courtroom. Which of the following individuals should the judge order be removed from the courtroom?
A) The eyewitness only.
B) The eyewitness and the former co-defendant only.
C) The eyewitness, the former co-defendant, and the desk officer, but not the investigating officer.
D) The eyewitness, the former co-defendant, the desk officer, and the investigating officer.
Learn more about courtroom decisions here:
https://brainly.com/question/433811
#SPJ4
