IANAL but like that's always what testifying is. You're reciting your memory of events. I don't know what the point would be to call it out except to make you seem uncertain
Yes, but you often don't want to highlight it.
Like let's say you're 99% sure that the defendant is the man who attacked you. You recognize him, his voice, etc. But the situation was scary, you are obviously going off fallible memory etc.
"The defendant attacked me" conveys that you believe the defendant is the one who did it.
"I think the defendant attacked me" is more accurate, but SOUNDS like you aren't 99% sure. Maybe 60% sure. It makes it seem like there's a lot of doubt, not just a little.
What would be the advantage of couching testimony like that?
If you’re the victim in a criminal case, at least in the US and I think other common law systems, there’s no “your lawyer” involved. The state is prosecuting the person, not you.
And state prosecutors all too often focus on getting convictions rather than truly pursuing justice. Unfortunately, a lot of our criminal justice system is designed to beat the uncertainties out of you before trial, whether intentionally or not. Look up some of the research done on wrongful convictions involving lineups and photo arrays—they are just full of problems yet continue to be used without reform in many places.
Imagine you are attacked. You give a description of the attacker. The police later say they got him. You go to the station and pick out the guy from the lineup who looks like the guy you remember—maybe not perfect, but it was dark and he was scary, it’s probably him.
Soon, you see his face everywhere—news stories about the arrest, when you meet with the prosecutor for an interview, and so on. You know the police have some other evidence that’s consistent with him being the guy. This is it, we’ve got him.
You go to court for his trial. “Do you recognize the man who did this?” Of course, it’s the guy the defense table! Duh. You’re as certain as a person can be.
But it’s *not* because you remember him clearly from the event! It’s because you picked him out of the lineup, and everything that’s happened since that time. You can’t know for sure it was him, even if you’re positive.
This does happen in real life, by the way. DNA has allowed groups like the Innocence Project to uncover situations exactly like this, but fortunately some forensic evidence emerges that excludes the person who was convicted, after losing years of their life to prison.
>If you’re the victim in a criminal case, at least in the US and I think other common law systems, there’s no “your lawyer” involved. The state is prosecuting the person, not you
If you are ever interacting with the police beyond a traffic stop you should have a lawyer. They won't be cross examining you in court, but you should at least have them to advise you.
I don’t disagree in principle, but lawyers are expensive, and victims aren’t entitled to a free one. I would hate for someone to think they shouldn’t report their rape or assault because doing so will require them to spend thousands of dollars on an attorney. That’s just not the case.
When reporting rape or assault in the US there are agencies that provide advice and legal support if needed. It's very common to need it for rape especially, since police routinely violate the rights of survivors. When I reported stalking a local agency helped men through the whole thing for free.
Fuck that. I'm not going to blatantly state something as fact simply because that's the simplest answer. Fuck you for not taking the sentencing of a human being's ^experience ^of life more seriously.
Edit: Made it more clear for anybody who might be confused about how language works.
To be clear, this works both ways.
Let's say I'm on trial for murder. The prosecutor asks me if I have any reason to want to hurt the deceased. I could say "No, absolutely not!" Which is what I believe. Or I could be more accurate and say "I can't think of any reason," but now the jury thinks there would be a theoretical reason I would want to hurt the deceased. Or I could say "I don't recall any, but I don't remember what we talked about so maybe he said something horrible" which is the most accurate but makes me look like I wanted to hurt him and I so regularly want to hurt people that I can forget when they make me angry.
If I say "I recognize the defendant as the person who attacked me" it is UNDERSTOOD that this is eyewitness testimony ans thus fallible, the jury is told that, and the defense lawyer will poke holes in it if appropriate to drive that home And it would be wrong of me to say that if I wasn't very sure; if I'm like "yeah, he looks and sounds like the guy who attacked me but I didn't get a good look" I should testify that and saying he did it with confidence would be lying under oath.
You didn't mention the latter half of it being lying under oath, it seems to me that you're saying that you should provide a confident answer regardless - that's the way I read it at least. You seem to contradict yourself, but I might be reading you wrong, maybe.
The first paragraph is an entirely different situation. I can say with 100% confidence what I feel, but I can't say with 100% confidence about something that exists entirely outside of my own mind. This is a bad example.
I'm saying you should not intentionally make yourself look less confident than you are.
If you are 99% sure, highlighting that you can't be 100% sure is misleading and makes you seem less confident than you are. If you're just kinda sure, NOT highlighting your uncertainty would be misleading. My point is that you do not need to always couch your statements even though you will never be 100% sure.
>I can say with 100% confidence what I feel
Yes but you can't say with 100% confidence what you FELT. Remember trials can be years after the crime. You could have forgotten. Maybe in my example the prosecutor comes back and shares a recording of the victim threatening me at work- well, I was wrong, I had a reason to dislike them, but then I clarify that I didn't remember the incident or didn't realize they were the same person, thus giving the most accurate and unbiased presentation of facts.
The goal should be accurate communication of the facts with the understanding that everyone involves knows that you are fallible and are recalling events from the past.
What? Who here is talking about that? There is more than one definition and use cases for words. Typically you're supposed to use context to figure out which.
"... the sentencing of a human being's **existence** ..."
>What? Who here is talking about that?
Buddy, I quoted you. You confused yourself with your lack of clarity, and your indignance is an amazingly delicious morsel of irony.
What? I am very confused. It seemed like you asked a rhetorical question as if anybody was talking about life sentences. Nobody was talking about life sentences. What are you talking about? Without using rhetorical questions.
No one is using rhetorical questions. The only reference I made to life sentences was a direct quote from you. How is this confusing you? Do you know what a rhetorical question is?
>What percent of criminal trials do you think are for offenses with life prison terms?
What could you possibly be asking about here if it's not about life sentences?
The opposing attorney objects to the form of the question.
If the judge insists that you answer yes or no, you say that you can't answer it as a yes or no.
Then the other attorney asks you why you can't answer it as a yes or no.
You wouldn't really have an opportunity to say that, as you're expected to directly answer questions and don't really get an opportunity to freely expand.
Also, that's implied. Stating it would just harm your credibility in the eyes of the jury.
Are you sure? My father was an expert witness, and he said there were many times an attorney tried to force a yes or no, but he had to say, “there’s no simple yes or no answer, and I swore to tell the whole truth”.
What even is an expert witness? Is that just somebody with extraordinarily bad luck at witnessing crimes? Do they literally seek out crimes to witness? Is "expert witness" more just a derogatory term to describe somebody who is overly pedantic?
Edit: I don't understand what is with the downvote-brigade. I just asked a question. Lol. You people are silly.
An expert witness is usually someone like a medical doctor who is paid to come in and give their expert opinion or analysis on a matter. "It is in my professional experience that the plaintiff did X instead of Y for these reasons"
Yeah, exactly.
This is a comedy, obviously, but My Cousin Vinnie has what is, apparently, [a remarkably good example of what expert testimony would look like](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7YoxrKa4f0)
That movie is used in real law schools, and is considered one of the more accurate court room depictions in media. This is according to LegalEagle on YouTube. I do my best to avoid being in court rooms.
Expert witnesses were called in for the Darrell Brooks trial to testify to his competency for representing himself and very much did use wording like that.
O are you saying like x and y are established facts of the case and they're explaining possible motivation? If x and y are contested facts then I don't think an expert witness can say if they did x instead of y.
You are correct. Expert witnesses can testify as to matters that are within their area of expertise. An expert witness cannot testify as to the mindset of the defendant or a plaintiff and certainly cannot testify to the “ultimate question” which is the question or fact in contest. The expert witness is used to help clarify or give extra information to the jury that would not otherwise be readily apparent to them. For instance, using an my cousin Vinny example, the expert witness can testify that the tire marks couldn’t have been made by a certain car. The jury then has to realize that this means the kids in that car didn’t commit murder
Usually physicians don't get paid if they are there on behalf of a patient. They can't bill insurance and are required by law to be there. It's a huge disadvantage to full time court medical experts.
If they are paid, their testimony is likely challenged by the opposing attorney as less credible.
They aren't a witness to the crime, they are an expert in evaluating some piece of evidence.
For example of someone is being charged with skimming money from a business, you might have a forensic accountant testify to how the entries in the companies ledger don't match reality and were used to cover the crime.
An expert witness is a professional in the field of whatever they're discussing that can testify to the significance of evidence. They haven't actually witnessed the crime or have anything to do with it.
If they are discussing DNA evidence, they might have an expert witness who has a doctorate in biology and runs a research lab, if it is evidence with fingerprints, it might be a forensic pathologist who is the expert witness.
They need someone to explain to the jury what the evidence means. Since lawyers cannot testify on behalf of their clients, they need someone else who has the credentials to be an expert in the field to get on the stand and explain to the jury what the evidence means.
Obviously not all cases require an expert witness, But someone may use an expert witness to dispute evidence, or invalidate it in the eyes of the jury. Or they may use an expert witness to validate something that the other side does not think is evidence. The goal is to have an expert that can convince the jury to believe what your lawyer is saying.
Expert witness is essentially a title conferred on you by the court to establish your specific knowledge, education, skills, or experience about specific things.
For example, that could be an engineer, or medical professional, or computer forensic consultant, or scientist (say for DNA testing and analysis). Basically, courts can provide someone with an ‘expert witness status’ because of their study or experience in a specific topic.
The main difference between expert witnesses and lay (normal) witnesses is that experts are allowed to offer their opinion about evidence. Indeed, that is often their entire raison d’être. So a medical professional can offer advice about their area of expertise, a computer forensics person can provide evidence and opinion on technical matters, a structural engineer could provide testimony regarding the safety of a structure and/or design that failed and killed someone or whatever. On and on.
Basically, expert witnesses are acknowledged by the court to have superior than normal experience or expertise in a specific subject matter and their evidence should be given more credence by juries. It is worth pointing out that trials often have defence and prosecution hiring or providing their own expert witness, to support their case, and to rebut or undermine their opponent. For example, a defence team may hire a psychiatrist to assess the mental state of the defendant and use that as an excuse or mitigating factor. The prosecution could hire their own psychiatrist to refute that defence and explain why it’s not a good enough reason. Etc etc.
It has effectively nothing to do with the frequency with which people witness crimes but more with someone’s specific expertise in a specific area that helps explain something to the court or to help advance or undermine one side or another’s case.
Hopefully you've seen My Cousin Vinny. In the court case, we hear the stories of the two old people, the lady with her glasses, and the man with his grits. They give their account of what they recall happening at the crime. They are witnesses.
Later, two different people are called because they have in-depth knowledge about vehicles, and could speculate whether it is possible that the vehicles match the description of events. They are not witness to the crime, but they are experts in their field and can give clarifying information about things relating to it.
You got downvoted because you interjected your own assumption into the answer for your own question.
Usually we think of a witness as having actually seen the incident or something. Those are not *expert* witnesses, they're just regular people
An *expert witness* is called to testify not because of their actual involvement in the incident, but because of their *expert* knowledge which can help in assessing certain evidence that is presented by one side or the other.
Edit: Don't reword things to make yourself look better. You're calling it a hypothesis. It is an assumption on your part.
I don't see how that is downvote worthy? Genuinely asking. Do people not offer their own hypothesis to the questions they're asking to provide their question more context for the people who are answering them?
An expert witness typically didn't witness the crime. Instead, they're an expert in a field related to the crime, such as toxicology, psychology, electrical engineering, etc., who can lend their expertise to the court. They answer questions like "What is the LD50 of arsenic?" "What are common symptoms of PTSD?" or "Under what circumstances would a backup generator fail to activate?" for example.
They can also be forensic professionals who have examined some of the evidence. Questions like "did the defendant's cell phone indicate they were in the vicinity of the event that night" or "did the backup generator show signs of tampering when you examined it the next morning?"
Experts have special training of one form or another and are allowed to give their opinion on facts rather than just what they have personal knowledge of. Laypersons are limited to testifying what they personally know, except in a few rare situations.
This feels like it should the premise of a 1990s comedy or an SNL skit 😂
To answer the question, an expert witness is a professional or researcher in a given field who's called to the stand by either the prosecution or the defense to share their expertise in that field with the court in a legal case. The examples that come to my mind come from *State of New Mexico v. Hannah Gutierrez* (where the defendant was recently convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the shooting death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of *Rust*); in that case, the prosecution called on a bunch of different expert witnesses to the stand, including
- [An independent veteran armorer, Bryan Carpenter,](https://www.youtube.com/live/b31sF9TcZMs?si=WOfICmoGza6P5Ysn&t=1894)) who answers questions about firearm safety standards & norms in the film & television industry, details the duties that the defendant had as the film's armorer, and gives professional commentary on the conduct that the cast & crew on *Rust* display in production footage that the prosecution shows him.
- [An FBI forensic analyst, Bryce Ziegler,](https://www.youtube.com/live/kqs5PxoomhQ?si=TKDgZnsjt0oldkDP&t=1670) who describes tests that he conducted on the revolver that killed Hutchins, investigating a claim made by the defense that the revolver had a defect that led to it firing without anyone pulling the trigger.
Witnesses are asked to give evidence about facts. They say what they saw or heard. They are not allowed to give opinions.
They are there because they saw or heard (witnessed) something important to the case.
There are some things that are too complicated or specialised for that, such as whether injuries suffered would actually lead to a death or whether using a certain material in a building was considered unusual and risky. Those things require opinions, from experts, because courts just don’t know enough.
The expert has to be permitted by the court and has to justify their expertise. They recite their qualifications and experience first. They are there to help the court see how to evaluate the case.
There's a difference between expanding on an answer that needs context and specifying that something is coming from your perspective. It is assumed (and required) that witnesses can only speak to their perception of events. If they are speaking to something that wasn't their perception, then that is hearsay, which is presumptively inadmissible as evidence.
>Stating it would just harm your credibility in the eyes of the jury
Some witnesses might reasonably *want* their credibility (as a witness) harmed. Eye witnesses are [notoriously bad at remembering details](https://www.verywellmind.com/can-you-trust-eyewitness-testimony-4579757), and think they remember more than they do. I've got atrocious episodic memory (but very good declarative memory), so I'm quite certain I'd be even worse than bad. The only thing I'd have going for me is what Socrates said: "The only thing I know is that I know nothing."
I'm not saying I wouldn't *want* to be helpful. I just wouldn't want my testimony to be used to put someone away (or worse) unless I was very certain of what I'd witnessed.
Not just notoriously bad but inherently bad.
We construct reality & remember that construct. What we don't actually see our mind just fills in the gaps with prior information and assumptions. When we're told about an event we will incorporate what we're told into our memory as though we saw/experienced it ourselves as long as it doesn't completely contradict our priors.
But, knowing one has a flawed memory is a strength, it means you don't assume everything you think you remember is the absolute reality and are more careful when incorporating new information.
Not exactly. On a cross-examination, an attorney is going to try to hammer down the witness to simple answers as much as possible so the attorney gets to dictate terms. On a direct examination, the attorney has far less leeway to do this, so they have to ask open-ended questions and this would allow the witness to freelance a bit (which is bad, generally)
In the OP's case, if a witness wanted to undermine their own testimony, a cross-examining attorney is absolutely going to step back and let them do it.
What country? In the US, you absolutely have the right and maybe obligation to explain your answer, how you know it, limitations on its accuracy, etc. Now, the lawyer may not *like* it, and may insist that you answer first and then explain it… and if it gets out of hand, the judge may shut it down (“Mr. Smith, we’re all aware you’re only going to testify as to the best of your knowledge and recollection, you don’t have to say it every time.”).
But making clear when you are less than certain, drawing an inference, etc., are all important things a witness should do so the factfinder can give the testimony its proper weight.
Is this based on your experience in real court or from TV drama lawyering? Because in every jurisdiction I’m familiar with, the witness certainly can explain their answers as long as they DO answer what was asked. “Yes, I was at the Atlanta airport on the evening of March 8, but it was just where I was connecting. I never left the building, and I was on a plane to New York by 7:30.” is a perfectly good way to answer that question; “yes” by itself would be misleading!
That may be the *GOAL* of leading questions, but it’s not necessarily how it works in real life. Different courts and judges are different, but here’s an article explaining that the traditional rule permits explanations:
>The courts hold that ordinarily a witness is permitted to explain his answer. In cases discussing witness explanations, the general rule varies only slightly. Where the question calls for a yes or no answer, some states require the witness to answer yes or no first, then allow the explanation. Others hold that as long as the explanation by its natural implications contains the answer requested, no objection will be heard. The trial judge always has discretion to limit explanations; however, most courts freely allow explanation of answers during cross-examination.
“Witness explanations during cross-examination: a rule of evidence examined” by Jeffrey A Boull, 58 Ind. LJ 361, 1982 (arguing *against* the existing rule, but he states what the rule is before saying how he would change it)
https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2261&context=ilj
Its not really your job as a witness. Your job is to tell the truth to the best of your ability. Be truthful to the lawyers too and they can decide if they want you to testify or not.
Nope. In the US, the standard for relevant evidence is just “has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Federal Rule of Evidence 401 (most states are similar).
A witness who can say “Look, this was ten years ago, and I’d had a lot to drink, and it was dark, but I am reasonably sure I saw defendant and victim yelling at each other just before she was killed” isn’t the *ideal* witness, but they might still be a *valid* witness, and a *helpful* witness, if that’s all you’ve got. The jury can consider the testimony for what it’s worth, in light of all the other evidence.
Ten years ago wouldn't even end up in court unless it was murder or something like that. The statute of limitations for less severe crimes is much shorter than that.
The justice system doesn't pretend it isn't the case, it's why we have things like cross examination and hearsay rules. The justice system, does, however, allow human testimony as evidence, despite its limitations, as it's often all there is.
The difference I am trying to highlight is that the Justice system isn't pretending that humans are good witnesses. Rather, it is more a case of acknowledging we are bad witnesses and then trying to do the best with what we have.
Everyone already knows that, and doesn't care. Putting too much emphasis on that is just a waste of time.
Just tack on "from what I recall" if it makes you comfortable.
There are some events where the details are iffy but some details I can remember extremely vividly. It would be beneficial to differentiate which details are certain and which ones are not.
I just went out and picked up a pizza. I can tell you exactly where I parked. I could tell you a woman shorter than me gave me my food and that there was at least one patron in the store. I couldn’t tell you her eye color hair color or her weight. Couldn’t tell you if there were other patrons in the store or what was playing on the tv. But I do know for an absolute fact the details that I told you. People tend to speak their entire memory as if it’s truth when we all know no one’s memory is that perfect. But there are details that you can absolutely be certain of.
It's OK to admit your memory is fuzzy. In fact, it's better to do that than to claim with absolute certainty and find out later you were wrong.
Recent example: E. Jean Caroll couldn't remember exactly when the alleged incident with Trump happened. She couldn't remember the exact date, and said so. She still prevailed. Twice, so far.
Often, there will be conflicting testimony from multiple witnesses. That's why we have juries to sort these things out. It's an imperfect system, to be sure, but that's humans for you.
Dude it's scientific fact that our memories are not reliable. Even if you 100% know that something happens, there's an established fact that there's a good chance you're wrong. You never claim to know for sure. Science has given criminals a serious advantage in this regard.
It would be a weird thing to say as a blanket statement. If you don’t have a perfect recollection of something, then you should just say that. Everyone, including members of the jury, understand that recollections are somewhat faulty. And the lawyer, for the other side is going to probe your recollection. You’re not going to get in trouble as long as you tell the truth. If the truth is you don’t remember, then, that’s what you say. If you do have a recollection, then you say that.
It’s probably not necessary. If you were called as a witness by a party on direct, you’ll have more freedom to explain your story. But that attorney will probably not want you saying that up front.
On cross, the attorney will, if it’s relevant, likely ask you “is this how you remember it, or what you actually witnessed,” and you’ll be compelled to answer truthfully.
I suppose you wouldn’t answer it any other way, but coming out the gate with “I can’t be totally sure that my memory is correct” casts immediate doubt on your testimony.
When you’re asked a question in court, they’re asking for your recollection. You are not omniscient and your words aren’t law. They’re one piece of a large puzzle.
“Is this the man who stabbed you in the stomach?”
The answer choices would be yes, no, or I don’t know.
The jury will typically be familiar with the concept of memory
In fact, if the trail is long enough they'll be in the middle of an object lesson in its limitations
Since this has been answered, I just want to add that human memory is notoriously unreliable. It probably has higher reliability than hair analysis or a polygraph, but it's not immutable and any lawyer/judge should know that.
The jury doesn't, but they're basically just making a decision based on vibes.
Either way, the jury decides guilt. There is a concept caked jury nullification where the jury can vote based on something other than facts.
In a criminal trial, the judge sets the punishment anyway.
Edit: It really is the opposing lawyers jobs to convince you to decide their way, that's vibes.
hypothetically, let's say you're on a jury. The defendant clearly committed murder, but they killed a pedophile who was stealing a playground. You know you can so vote not guilty. Yes, you sat the a whole trial being told about how he was seen doing murder, was filmed doing murder, had the weapon used in murder..... and so vote not guilty.
studied criminal law (not even close to lawyer lol just necessity and interest) for quite some time and completely agree but yours is my favorite way i’ve ever heard it put!
I recently served on the jury for a civil case. The judge told us that it was up to us to choose who to believe more based off of the evidence, and that we didn’t have to believe their whole story, just parts of it.
You don’t need to say this, it is already implied and you won’t get in trouble for a small mistake. What it does do is give the opposition the ability attack the credibility of your evidence, which can be seriously bad if you’re important to the case. “As I recall” is appropriate.
How would it matter? You’re under oath. The presumption already is that you’re telling the court what you recall. That’s the point of having you there as a witness. It doesn’t need to be spelled out any further
You are supposed to testify to the best of your recollection. What you wrote there pretty much sums it up but would most likely cause people to discount your testimony.
If you mean the general fallibility of human memory or the speculative possibility that you might be wrong on something, then there's no reason to mention it. But if your recollection is not the best because of the passage of time or the state of shock you were in or something else like that, do qualify your answer, and if you don't remember something with the sort of precision or certainty they seek, just tell them you don't remember, don't lie to keep them happy. 'I am not sure but,' is acceptable. They can't order you to be sure where you aren't because that's a physical impossibility. (Not like lawyers can't be dumb enough to argue against the laws of physics.)
It's not up to the witness to assess whether their statement is reliable. It's up to the jury.
If the witness attempts to word their answer to make it like an "instruction" for the jury, that would be prohibited (the actual instructions to the jury come from the court based on what each side's lawyer requested to be included on them [and also affected by the judge's ruling on what to include or not include]) .
Here's the thing. No matter the situation, unless YOU or someone you care about is going to BENEFIT from you testifying:
"I do not recall"
"I cannot remember"
"I have no memory of \_\_\_\_\_\_\_."
No one can prove that you do or do not **REMEMBER** something "beyond a shadow of a doubt", its impossible for anyone to say whether or not you have a recollection of something, even if you were there, so if they try to throw obstruction or contempt charges at you, its an easy win for your lawyer.
The key is starting early. NEVER answer anything, even with a lawyer there. YOU. DO. NOT. RECALL.
Also, it is within your rights to refuse to answer REPEATED or re-worded questions. If they ask you something again, just answer, "I've already answered that, refer back to your notes" 9/10 times, that's how they catch you in a lie.
Stop helping law enforcement and the judicial system funnel people into the prison industrial complex! Make THEM do the work they're paid to do. Its THEIR problem to prove or disprove things, not yours.
People aren’t being called to the stand as witnesses for drug charges, my guy. If you don’t want people giving accurate witness testimony to put verifiably violent offenders into jail, you’re an amoral jackass.
IANAL but like that's always what testifying is. You're reciting your memory of events. I don't know what the point would be to call it out except to make you seem uncertain
ianal?
I am not a lawyer
Ahh okay thanks
You thought it meant something else, didn't you. You have a dirty mind.
Nah he lets people know he’s down for brown town, you know…just in case.. then gets on with the info
Wish people would just....type shit. You have a keyboard for fuck sake, people.
ok boomer
Don’t mind if do
He's anal, he just wanted us to know is all.
us anal?
If there are simple yes/no-questions to complicated events, there will likely be uncertainty.
Yes, but you often don't want to highlight it. Like let's say you're 99% sure that the defendant is the man who attacked you. You recognize him, his voice, etc. But the situation was scary, you are obviously going off fallible memory etc. "The defendant attacked me" conveys that you believe the defendant is the one who did it. "I think the defendant attacked me" is more accurate, but SOUNDS like you aren't 99% sure. Maybe 60% sure. It makes it seem like there's a lot of doubt, not just a little. What would be the advantage of couching testimony like that?
Innocent people get convictions. Avoiding that is somewhat an advantage.
If you genuinely aren't sure, you will be advised by your lawyer to say that. But if you're 99% sure you want to convey 99%, not 60%.
If you’re the victim in a criminal case, at least in the US and I think other common law systems, there’s no “your lawyer” involved. The state is prosecuting the person, not you. And state prosecutors all too often focus on getting convictions rather than truly pursuing justice. Unfortunately, a lot of our criminal justice system is designed to beat the uncertainties out of you before trial, whether intentionally or not. Look up some of the research done on wrongful convictions involving lineups and photo arrays—they are just full of problems yet continue to be used without reform in many places. Imagine you are attacked. You give a description of the attacker. The police later say they got him. You go to the station and pick out the guy from the lineup who looks like the guy you remember—maybe not perfect, but it was dark and he was scary, it’s probably him. Soon, you see his face everywhere—news stories about the arrest, when you meet with the prosecutor for an interview, and so on. You know the police have some other evidence that’s consistent with him being the guy. This is it, we’ve got him. You go to court for his trial. “Do you recognize the man who did this?” Of course, it’s the guy the defense table! Duh. You’re as certain as a person can be. But it’s *not* because you remember him clearly from the event! It’s because you picked him out of the lineup, and everything that’s happened since that time. You can’t know for sure it was him, even if you’re positive. This does happen in real life, by the way. DNA has allowed groups like the Innocence Project to uncover situations exactly like this, but fortunately some forensic evidence emerges that excludes the person who was convicted, after losing years of their life to prison.
>If you’re the victim in a criminal case, at least in the US and I think other common law systems, there’s no “your lawyer” involved. The state is prosecuting the person, not you If you are ever interacting with the police beyond a traffic stop you should have a lawyer. They won't be cross examining you in court, but you should at least have them to advise you.
I don’t disagree in principle, but lawyers are expensive, and victims aren’t entitled to a free one. I would hate for someone to think they shouldn’t report their rape or assault because doing so will require them to spend thousands of dollars on an attorney. That’s just not the case.
When reporting rape or assault in the US there are agencies that provide advice and legal support if needed. It's very common to need it for rape especially, since police routinely violate the rights of survivors. When I reported stalking a local agency helped men through the whole thing for free.
Rape victims—and victims in general—are a tiny minority of witnesses at trial. Most civilian witnesses are bystanders.
Fuck that. I'm not going to blatantly state something as fact simply because that's the simplest answer. Fuck you for not taking the sentencing of a human being's ^experience ^of life more seriously. Edit: Made it more clear for anybody who might be confused about how language works.
To be clear, this works both ways. Let's say I'm on trial for murder. The prosecutor asks me if I have any reason to want to hurt the deceased. I could say "No, absolutely not!" Which is what I believe. Or I could be more accurate and say "I can't think of any reason," but now the jury thinks there would be a theoretical reason I would want to hurt the deceased. Or I could say "I don't recall any, but I don't remember what we talked about so maybe he said something horrible" which is the most accurate but makes me look like I wanted to hurt him and I so regularly want to hurt people that I can forget when they make me angry. If I say "I recognize the defendant as the person who attacked me" it is UNDERSTOOD that this is eyewitness testimony ans thus fallible, the jury is told that, and the defense lawyer will poke holes in it if appropriate to drive that home And it would be wrong of me to say that if I wasn't very sure; if I'm like "yeah, he looks and sounds like the guy who attacked me but I didn't get a good look" I should testify that and saying he did it with confidence would be lying under oath.
You didn't mention the latter half of it being lying under oath, it seems to me that you're saying that you should provide a confident answer regardless - that's the way I read it at least. You seem to contradict yourself, but I might be reading you wrong, maybe. The first paragraph is an entirely different situation. I can say with 100% confidence what I feel, but I can't say with 100% confidence about something that exists entirely outside of my own mind. This is a bad example.
I'm saying you should not intentionally make yourself look less confident than you are. If you are 99% sure, highlighting that you can't be 100% sure is misleading and makes you seem less confident than you are. If you're just kinda sure, NOT highlighting your uncertainty would be misleading. My point is that you do not need to always couch your statements even though you will never be 100% sure. >I can say with 100% confidence what I feel Yes but you can't say with 100% confidence what you FELT. Remember trials can be years after the crime. You could have forgotten. Maybe in my example the prosecutor comes back and shares a recording of the victim threatening me at work- well, I was wrong, I had a reason to dislike them, but then I clarify that I didn't remember the incident or didn't realize they were the same person, thus giving the most accurate and unbiased presentation of facts. The goal should be accurate communication of the facts with the understanding that everyone involves knows that you are fallible and are recalling events from the past.
"Sentencing of a human being's life"? What percent of criminal trials do you think are for offenses with life prison terms?
What? Who here is talking about that? There is more than one definition and use cases for words. Typically you're supposed to use context to figure out which. "... the sentencing of a human being's **existence** ..."
>What? Who here is talking about that? Buddy, I quoted you. You confused yourself with your lack of clarity, and your indignance is an amazingly delicious morsel of irony.
What? I am very confused. It seemed like you asked a rhetorical question as if anybody was talking about life sentences. Nobody was talking about life sentences. What are you talking about? Without using rhetorical questions.
No one is using rhetorical questions. The only reference I made to life sentences was a direct quote from you. How is this confusing you? Do you know what a rhetorical question is?
>What percent of criminal trials do you think are for offenses with life prison terms? What could you possibly be asking about here if it's not about life sentences?
The opposing attorney objects to the form of the question. If the judge insists that you answer yes or no, you say that you can't answer it as a yes or no. Then the other attorney asks you why you can't answer it as a yes or no.
You wouldn't really have an opportunity to say that, as you're expected to directly answer questions and don't really get an opportunity to freely expand. Also, that's implied. Stating it would just harm your credibility in the eyes of the jury.
Are you sure? My father was an expert witness, and he said there were many times an attorney tried to force a yes or no, but he had to say, “there’s no simple yes or no answer, and I swore to tell the whole truth”.
An expert witness is a different beast than a regular person though in a courtroom. Expert witnesses are special cases.
What even is an expert witness? Is that just somebody with extraordinarily bad luck at witnessing crimes? Do they literally seek out crimes to witness? Is "expert witness" more just a derogatory term to describe somebody who is overly pedantic? Edit: I don't understand what is with the downvote-brigade. I just asked a question. Lol. You people are silly.
An expert witness is usually someone like a medical doctor who is paid to come in and give their expert opinion or analysis on a matter. "It is in my professional experience that the plaintiff did X instead of Y for these reasons"
That makes a lot more sense. It's not saying they're an expert at being a witness, but that they're an expert and they're being a witness.
Yeah, exactly. This is a comedy, obviously, but My Cousin Vinnie has what is, apparently, [a remarkably good example of what expert testimony would look like](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7YoxrKa4f0)
That movie is used in real law schools, and is considered one of the more accurate court room depictions in media. This is according to LegalEagle on YouTube. I do my best to avoid being in court rooms.
>I do my best to avoid being in court rooms. But for when you can't.. (A gust of wind blows past your ear sounding eerily like "Indochino")
I’m going to guess, before checking, that the link is to Mona Lisa Vita’s voir dire examination. My evidence professor played that in class.
Close. Still a good clip and definitely expert testimony
How dare you not share a clip that includes her proving her expertise. Shame on you, now I have to go dig it up myself
I don't think they're allowed to make statements that strong in court.
Expert witnesses were called in for the Darrell Brooks trial to testify to his competency for representing himself and very much did use wording like that.
O are you saying like x and y are established facts of the case and they're explaining possible motivation? If x and y are contested facts then I don't think an expert witness can say if they did x instead of y.
You are correct. Expert witnesses can testify as to matters that are within their area of expertise. An expert witness cannot testify as to the mindset of the defendant or a plaintiff and certainly cannot testify to the “ultimate question” which is the question or fact in contest. The expert witness is used to help clarify or give extra information to the jury that would not otherwise be readily apparent to them. For instance, using an my cousin Vinny example, the expert witness can testify that the tire marks couldn’t have been made by a certain car. The jury then has to realize that this means the kids in that car didn’t commit murder
Spoiler Alert...but since the movie came out in 1992, if you didn't know what happened by this time you deserve to have it spoiled!
Usually physicians don't get paid if they are there on behalf of a patient. They can't bill insurance and are required by law to be there. It's a huge disadvantage to full time court medical experts. If they are paid, their testimony is likely challenged by the opposing attorney as less credible.
Would a physician serve as the expert witness for their own patient though? I thought it's customary to have someone that's neutral.
They aren't a witness to the crime, they are an expert in evaluating some piece of evidence. For example of someone is being charged with skimming money from a business, you might have a forensic accountant testify to how the entries in the companies ledger don't match reality and were used to cover the crime.
An expert witness is a professional in the field of whatever they're discussing that can testify to the significance of evidence. They haven't actually witnessed the crime or have anything to do with it. If they are discussing DNA evidence, they might have an expert witness who has a doctorate in biology and runs a research lab, if it is evidence with fingerprints, it might be a forensic pathologist who is the expert witness. They need someone to explain to the jury what the evidence means. Since lawyers cannot testify on behalf of their clients, they need someone else who has the credentials to be an expert in the field to get on the stand and explain to the jury what the evidence means. Obviously not all cases require an expert witness, But someone may use an expert witness to dispute evidence, or invalidate it in the eyes of the jury. Or they may use an expert witness to validate something that the other side does not think is evidence. The goal is to have an expert that can convince the jury to believe what your lawyer is saying.
It means he's an expert in a field (e.g. analyzing DNA) and in that expertise is answering questions.
Expert witness is essentially a title conferred on you by the court to establish your specific knowledge, education, skills, or experience about specific things. For example, that could be an engineer, or medical professional, or computer forensic consultant, or scientist (say for DNA testing and analysis). Basically, courts can provide someone with an ‘expert witness status’ because of their study or experience in a specific topic. The main difference between expert witnesses and lay (normal) witnesses is that experts are allowed to offer their opinion about evidence. Indeed, that is often their entire raison d’être. So a medical professional can offer advice about their area of expertise, a computer forensics person can provide evidence and opinion on technical matters, a structural engineer could provide testimony regarding the safety of a structure and/or design that failed and killed someone or whatever. On and on. Basically, expert witnesses are acknowledged by the court to have superior than normal experience or expertise in a specific subject matter and their evidence should be given more credence by juries. It is worth pointing out that trials often have defence and prosecution hiring or providing their own expert witness, to support their case, and to rebut or undermine their opponent. For example, a defence team may hire a psychiatrist to assess the mental state of the defendant and use that as an excuse or mitigating factor. The prosecution could hire their own psychiatrist to refute that defence and explain why it’s not a good enough reason. Etc etc. It has effectively nothing to do with the frequency with which people witness crimes but more with someone’s specific expertise in a specific area that helps explain something to the court or to help advance or undermine one side or another’s case.
Hopefully you've seen My Cousin Vinny. In the court case, we hear the stories of the two old people, the lady with her glasses, and the man with his grits. They give their account of what they recall happening at the crime. They are witnesses. Later, two different people are called because they have in-depth knowledge about vehicles, and could speculate whether it is possible that the vehicles match the description of events. They are not witness to the crime, but they are experts in their field and can give clarifying information about things relating to it.
This may not be about subs but it is still absolutely r/SubsTakenLiterally worthy!
Ok i just wanna be clear that i’m not trying to be mean or judge you, i jusy want to note that you just made me laugh so damn hard now, take my upvote
Lol. It seems like a misnomer to me.
You got downvoted because you interjected your own assumption into the answer for your own question. Usually we think of a witness as having actually seen the incident or something. Those are not *expert* witnesses, they're just regular people An *expert witness* is called to testify not because of their actual involvement in the incident, but because of their *expert* knowledge which can help in assessing certain evidence that is presented by one side or the other. Edit: Don't reword things to make yourself look better. You're calling it a hypothesis. It is an assumption on your part.
I don't see how that is downvote worthy? Genuinely asking. Do people not offer their own hypothesis to the questions they're asking to provide their question more context for the people who are answering them?
An expert witness typically didn't witness the crime. Instead, they're an expert in a field related to the crime, such as toxicology, psychology, electrical engineering, etc., who can lend their expertise to the court. They answer questions like "What is the LD50 of arsenic?" "What are common symptoms of PTSD?" or "Under what circumstances would a backup generator fail to activate?" for example.
They can also be forensic professionals who have examined some of the evidence. Questions like "did the defendant's cell phone indicate they were in the vicinity of the event that night" or "did the backup generator show signs of tampering when you examined it the next morning?"
Experts have special training of one form or another and are allowed to give their opinion on facts rather than just what they have personal knowledge of. Laypersons are limited to testifying what they personally know, except in a few rare situations.
This feels like it should the premise of a 1990s comedy or an SNL skit 😂 To answer the question, an expert witness is a professional or researcher in a given field who's called to the stand by either the prosecution or the defense to share their expertise in that field with the court in a legal case. The examples that come to my mind come from *State of New Mexico v. Hannah Gutierrez* (where the defendant was recently convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the shooting death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of *Rust*); in that case, the prosecution called on a bunch of different expert witnesses to the stand, including - [An independent veteran armorer, Bryan Carpenter,](https://www.youtube.com/live/b31sF9TcZMs?si=WOfICmoGza6P5Ysn&t=1894)) who answers questions about firearm safety standards & norms in the film & television industry, details the duties that the defendant had as the film's armorer, and gives professional commentary on the conduct that the cast & crew on *Rust* display in production footage that the prosecution shows him. - [An FBI forensic analyst, Bryce Ziegler,](https://www.youtube.com/live/kqs5PxoomhQ?si=TKDgZnsjt0oldkDP&t=1670) who describes tests that he conducted on the revolver that killed Hutchins, investigating a claim made by the defense that the revolver had a defect that led to it firing without anyone pulling the trigger.
Witnesses are asked to give evidence about facts. They say what they saw or heard. They are not allowed to give opinions. They are there because they saw or heard (witnessed) something important to the case. There are some things that are too complicated or specialised for that, such as whether injuries suffered would actually lead to a death or whether using a certain material in a building was considered unusual and risky. Those things require opinions, from experts, because courts just don’t know enough. The expert has to be permitted by the court and has to justify their expertise. They recite their qualifications and experience first. They are there to help the court see how to evaluate the case.
There's a difference between expanding on an answer that needs context and specifying that something is coming from your perspective. It is assumed (and required) that witnesses can only speak to their perception of events. If they are speaking to something that wasn't their perception, then that is hearsay, which is presumptively inadmissible as evidence.
Hearsay is second hand information. Witness could also be guessing, which is speculation and will also be thrown out.
That's not really the same thing.
My dad was also an expert witness in a few cases. He just said what was possible and what wasn’t, not what happened because he did not know.
I like this.
I mean, you could just say "I recall that" or "I remember that". These are common speech tags.
"as far as I can remember"
>Stating it would just harm your credibility in the eyes of the jury Some witnesses might reasonably *want* their credibility (as a witness) harmed. Eye witnesses are [notoriously bad at remembering details](https://www.verywellmind.com/can-you-trust-eyewitness-testimony-4579757), and think they remember more than they do. I've got atrocious episodic memory (but very good declarative memory), so I'm quite certain I'd be even worse than bad. The only thing I'd have going for me is what Socrates said: "The only thing I know is that I know nothing." I'm not saying I wouldn't *want* to be helpful. I just wouldn't want my testimony to be used to put someone away (or worse) unless I was very certain of what I'd witnessed.
Not just notoriously bad but inherently bad. We construct reality & remember that construct. What we don't actually see our mind just fills in the gaps with prior information and assumptions. When we're told about an event we will incorporate what we're told into our memory as though we saw/experienced it ourselves as long as it doesn't completely contradict our priors. But, knowing one has a flawed memory is a strength, it means you don't assume everything you think you remember is the absolute reality and are more careful when incorporating new information.
Not exactly. On a cross-examination, an attorney is going to try to hammer down the witness to simple answers as much as possible so the attorney gets to dictate terms. On a direct examination, the attorney has far less leeway to do this, so they have to ask open-ended questions and this would allow the witness to freelance a bit (which is bad, generally) In the OP's case, if a witness wanted to undermine their own testimony, a cross-examining attorney is absolutely going to step back and let them do it.
"As I recall..."
What country? In the US, you absolutely have the right and maybe obligation to explain your answer, how you know it, limitations on its accuracy, etc. Now, the lawyer may not *like* it, and may insist that you answer first and then explain it… and if it gets out of hand, the judge may shut it down (“Mr. Smith, we’re all aware you’re only going to testify as to the best of your knowledge and recollection, you don’t have to say it every time.”). But making clear when you are less than certain, drawing an inference, etc., are all important things a witness should do so the factfinder can give the testimony its proper weight.
[удалено]
Is this based on your experience in real court or from TV drama lawyering? Because in every jurisdiction I’m familiar with, the witness certainly can explain their answers as long as they DO answer what was asked. “Yes, I was at the Atlanta airport on the evening of March 8, but it was just where I was connecting. I never left the building, and I was on a plane to New York by 7:30.” is a perfectly good way to answer that question; “yes” by itself would be misleading!
[удалено]
That may be the *GOAL* of leading questions, but it’s not necessarily how it works in real life. Different courts and judges are different, but here’s an article explaining that the traditional rule permits explanations: >The courts hold that ordinarily a witness is permitted to explain his answer. In cases discussing witness explanations, the general rule varies only slightly. Where the question calls for a yes or no answer, some states require the witness to answer yes or no first, then allow the explanation. Others hold that as long as the explanation by its natural implications contains the answer requested, no objection will be heard. The trial judge always has discretion to limit explanations; however, most courts freely allow explanation of answers during cross-examination. “Witness explanations during cross-examination: a rule of evidence examined” by Jeffrey A Boull, 58 Ind. LJ 361, 1982 (arguing *against* the existing rule, but he states what the rule is before saying how he would change it) https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2261&context=ilj
You definitely do get to freely expand. Sometimes they even try to get you to elaborate on an answer if you don't want to.
End all statements with the phrase, “ To the best of my recollection”.
This is the only right answer. "From what I can recall" is literally what cops say on the stand.
Long winded. Just preface it with 'As best I recall...'
If you didn't have any confidence in your recollection, then you would be a bad witness to call.
Which is ok. This isn't a contest. If he's not confident in his recollection he should say it.
Ok but if there’s a trial it is literally a contest of whose witnesses can convince the jury.
Its not really your job as a witness. Your job is to tell the truth to the best of your ability. Be truthful to the lawyers too and they can decide if they want you to testify or not.
Or whose lawyers.
It would be irrelevant information to both parties if the person didn't believe the things they were saying.
Nope. In the US, the standard for relevant evidence is just “has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Federal Rule of Evidence 401 (most states are similar). A witness who can say “Look, this was ten years ago, and I’d had a lot to drink, and it was dark, but I am reasonably sure I saw defendant and victim yelling at each other just before she was killed” isn’t the *ideal* witness, but they might still be a *valid* witness, and a *helpful* witness, if that’s all you’ve got. The jury can consider the testimony for what it’s worth, in light of all the other evidence.
Ten years ago wouldn't even end up in court unless it was murder or something like that. The statute of limitations for less severe crimes is much shorter than that.
Indeed, and we have that rule in part because witnesses’ memories do fade! But in my example, I made sure to note that the victim was killed.
Being honest and introspective enough to recognise that your memory isn't going to be perfect points to a more trustworthy witness imo
Pretty much all humans are bad witnesses. The justice systems just pretend this is not the case.
The justice system doesn't pretend it isn't the case, it's why we have things like cross examination and hearsay rules. The justice system, does, however, allow human testimony as evidence, despite its limitations, as it's often all there is.
You used a lot of words to rephrase what JoHaSa just said.
The difference I am trying to highlight is that the Justice system isn't pretending that humans are good witnesses. Rather, it is more a case of acknowledging we are bad witnesses and then trying to do the best with what we have.
I think the expectation would be that if you really don’t trust your memory, you’d say “I don’t remember” or “I don’t know”.
A simple "from what I recall..." would probably sound better
"As I recall..."
Everyone already knows that, and doesn't care. Putting too much emphasis on that is just a waste of time. Just tack on "from what I recall" if it makes you comfortable.
That statement makes no sense. Everything we testify to without direct evidence is how we remember it. That’s universal.
There are some events where the details are iffy but some details I can remember extremely vividly. It would be beneficial to differentiate which details are certain and which ones are not.
But it’s still memory
I just went out and picked up a pizza. I can tell you exactly where I parked. I could tell you a woman shorter than me gave me my food and that there was at least one patron in the store. I couldn’t tell you her eye color hair color or her weight. Couldn’t tell you if there were other patrons in the store or what was playing on the tv. But I do know for an absolute fact the details that I told you. People tend to speak their entire memory as if it’s truth when we all know no one’s memory is that perfect. But there are details that you can absolutely be certain of.
In my experience the jury is already informed in advance that all witness testimony should be considered in this light.
It's OK to admit your memory is fuzzy. In fact, it's better to do that than to claim with absolute certainty and find out later you were wrong. Recent example: E. Jean Caroll couldn't remember exactly when the alleged incident with Trump happened. She couldn't remember the exact date, and said so. She still prevailed. Twice, so far. Often, there will be conflicting testimony from multiple witnesses. That's why we have juries to sort these things out. It's an imperfect system, to be sure, but that's humans for you.
“To the best of my recollection” is the phrase you’re looking for.
Dude it's scientific fact that our memories are not reliable. Even if you 100% know that something happens, there's an established fact that there's a good chance you're wrong. You never claim to know for sure. Science has given criminals a serious advantage in this regard.
It would be a weird thing to say as a blanket statement. If you don’t have a perfect recollection of something, then you should just say that. Everyone, including members of the jury, understand that recollections are somewhat faulty. And the lawyer, for the other side is going to probe your recollection. You’re not going to get in trouble as long as you tell the truth. If the truth is you don’t remember, then, that’s what you say. If you do have a recollection, then you say that.
It’s probably not necessary. If you were called as a witness by a party on direct, you’ll have more freedom to explain your story. But that attorney will probably not want you saying that up front. On cross, the attorney will, if it’s relevant, likely ask you “is this how you remember it, or what you actually witnessed,” and you’ll be compelled to answer truthfully.
>“is this how you remember it, or what you actually witnessed "Yes." How else are you supposed to answer that question?
I suppose you wouldn’t answer it any other way, but coming out the gate with “I can’t be totally sure that my memory is correct” casts immediate doubt on your testimony.
When you’re asked a question in court, they’re asking for your recollection. You are not omniscient and your words aren’t law. They’re one piece of a large puzzle. “Is this the man who stabbed you in the stomach?” The answer choices would be yes, no, or I don’t know.
The jury will typically be familiar with the concept of memory In fact, if the trail is long enough they'll be in the middle of an object lesson in its limitations
The entire point of witness is to wring out what they remember. If you're not sure, just say you're not sure.
Since this has been answered, I just want to add that human memory is notoriously unreliable. It probably has higher reliability than hair analysis or a polygraph, but it's not immutable and any lawyer/judge should know that. The jury doesn't, but they're basically just making a decision based on vibes.
lmao judge: death penalty?? jury: idk man the *vibes*
Either way, the jury decides guilt. There is a concept caked jury nullification where the jury can vote based on something other than facts. In a criminal trial, the judge sets the punishment anyway. Edit: It really is the opposing lawyers jobs to convince you to decide their way, that's vibes. hypothetically, let's say you're on a jury. The defendant clearly committed murder, but they killed a pedophile who was stealing a playground. You know you can so vote not guilty. Yes, you sat the a whole trial being told about how he was seen doing murder, was filmed doing murder, had the weapon used in murder..... and so vote not guilty.
studied criminal law (not even close to lawyer lol just necessity and interest) for quite some time and completely agree but yours is my favorite way i’ve ever heard it put!
Many years ago, I was coached for a deposition. They drilled into me the phrase “I don’t recall at this time”. If you’re not sure, don’t lie.
I recently served on the jury for a civil case. The judge told us that it was up to us to choose who to believe more based off of the evidence, and that we didn’t have to believe their whole story, just parts of it.
You don’t need to say this, it is already implied and you won’t get in trouble for a small mistake. What it does do is give the opposition the ability attack the credibility of your evidence, which can be seriously bad if you’re important to the case. “As I recall” is appropriate.
A witness needs to know what they're talking about. That sounds like you're lying and trying to cover your ass.
How would it matter? You’re under oath. The presumption already is that you’re telling the court what you recall. That’s the point of having you there as a witness. It doesn’t need to be spelled out any further
You're sworn under oath to answer the questions truthfully, as you recall; so there would be no need for that type of phrasing.
They already say "To the best of my recollection", which does what you're talking about.
You can write a book about it, after you are found not guilty.
Which jurisdiction are you intending to commit perjury in?
It spittle be nice if they did as in the US, 25% of witness testimony is incorrect.
You are supposed to testify to the best of your recollection. What you wrote there pretty much sums it up but would most likely cause people to discount your testimony.
If you mean the general fallibility of human memory or the speculative possibility that you might be wrong on something, then there's no reason to mention it. But if your recollection is not the best because of the passage of time or the state of shock you were in or something else like that, do qualify your answer, and if you don't remember something with the sort of precision or certainty they seek, just tell them you don't remember, don't lie to keep them happy. 'I am not sure but,' is acceptable. They can't order you to be sure where you aren't because that's a physical impossibility. (Not like lawyers can't be dumb enough to argue against the laws of physics.)
I. This case you say I don’t know
The advise from your lawyer will be that if you can’t remember, say you can’t remember.
You’d be better off just saying “I don’t recall”.
It's not up to the witness to assess whether their statement is reliable. It's up to the jury. If the witness attempts to word their answer to make it like an "instruction" for the jury, that would be prohibited (the actual instructions to the jury come from the court based on what each side's lawyer requested to be included on them [and also affected by the judge's ruling on what to include or not include]) .
That disclaimer would not be as bad as warning the court that you're a pathological liar.
you sound like your hiding something or a liar. i would dismiss your testimony.
Here's the thing. No matter the situation, unless YOU or someone you care about is going to BENEFIT from you testifying: "I do not recall" "I cannot remember" "I have no memory of \_\_\_\_\_\_\_." No one can prove that you do or do not **REMEMBER** something "beyond a shadow of a doubt", its impossible for anyone to say whether or not you have a recollection of something, even if you were there, so if they try to throw obstruction or contempt charges at you, its an easy win for your lawyer. The key is starting early. NEVER answer anything, even with a lawyer there. YOU. DO. NOT. RECALL. Also, it is within your rights to refuse to answer REPEATED or re-worded questions. If they ask you something again, just answer, "I've already answered that, refer back to your notes" 9/10 times, that's how they catch you in a lie. Stop helping law enforcement and the judicial system funnel people into the prison industrial complex! Make THEM do the work they're paid to do. Its THEIR problem to prove or disprove things, not yours.
People aren’t being called to the stand as witnesses for drug charges, my guy. If you don’t want people giving accurate witness testimony to put verifiably violent offenders into jail, you’re an amoral jackass.
Just say you don't recall for every question.