relevant employees into clients of general counsel. The absurdity of this position is demonstrated by observing that by application of such a rule, following the shooting, Allen would have been Appellant’s counsel insofar as, during his escape to Missouri following the homicide, he was still an employee of the school system. The converse of the rights of the defense and the prosecution to interview witnesses unimpeded by third parties, is the opposing right of witnesses to refuse to be interviewed by either the defense or the prosecution. Commonwealth v. Peters, 353 S.W.3d 592, 598 (Ky.2011) (RCr 7.24 and RCr 8.03 do not authorize the trial court to compel a witness’s attendance for discovery); Radford, 212 S.W.3d at 82; see also United States v. Scott, 518 F.2d 261, 268 (6th Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>). Because a witness has this right, it
recognizing that any witness has the right to refuse to be interviewed if he so desires and is not under or subject to legal process holding that the commissioner has an obligation to refuse to grant a patent if he believes that doing so would be contrary to law recognizing that where witness has no constitutional or statutory right to refuse to testify jurors are entitled to draw negative inference from witness refusal to testify holding that a suspect must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law that he has the right to the presence of an attorney and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires holding that an individual can waive any process to which he or she has a right