Take this bizarre scenario, a husbands His wife calls the police on him one afternnon cause he wont leave their marital residence. Police arrive and see a mark on his arm, asked him who did that, husband said his wife, and cops went in the house and cuffed the wife. At the sight of this the husband felt guilty and told the cops to stop, that he lied to them about the mark on his arm. The cops demanded a written affidavit, wife went back inside and husband went to jail.

Now the wife did not like getting cuffed, even though she called the police in the first place for seemingly no reason, and even thought the husband spoke up and took responsibility for what he did. Still, when the husband returned home from jail about 12 hours later, she called the police and lied to them that her husband scared her. The husband is now back to jail the same day for something he didn't do (domestic assault). Now this charge gives a automatic protective order to the victim, but that wasn't enough for the wife. While in jail, the wife files a domestic violence injunction. the judge denies it, so then the wife doctors her lie a lot more skillfully, and the restraining order is finally obtained. This is a little irrelevant to the question but important to udnerstand the whole picture. Tthe couple has three small children, and the wife has a utterly distressful history of parental alienation with the husband. TO make matters even more complicated, the husband is alcoholic but an unusual alcoholic in that he a pacifist to the bone and close to completely functional. He's responsible with it, but it is detriment that he doesn't deny.

So the first day in court of course was for the DVI, over the wife false allegations that the husband scared her. The husband knew, that the false police report charge (criminal) charge was a big red flag to this (civil) court, even though he defendant went to jail for his wife. he will now be seen at as a liar by he court. The court reminded the defendant since there was an outstanding criminal case, he doesn't have to discuss it at the hearing, to avoid incriminating himself.

So now the husband has two far off scheduled criminal cases and the upcoming injunction hearing whose outcome will have long reaching effects on his relationship with his children, he knows it. For the wife, already an alternator, the inunctionj gives her a tool kit to more effectively alienate. So the husband thinks he must get this injunction, which is based on a lie, dismissed.

So, at the hearing he incriminated himself to the false police report charge by testimony, and against the initial suggestion of his council and the judge. His intention was to show the judge that he will go to great length to make it knows he is being honest, even if it means self incriminating and jail tinme.

Before the judge ruled in favor of the petitioner and made the injunction permanent, at the end of the hearing, she told the respondent that he had no credibility if her eyes because of that police report charge. So, the efforts of the husband, the self incrimination was in fact for nothing

Could it be enough in an appellate court however? Does self incrimination provide a way to improve credibility to a court? That was the only issue brought up so perhaps with credibility the case could have been dismissed..

  • Why a neg vote? If you don't comment it's kinda of worthless
    – rhill45
    Oct 20 '18 at 22:42
  • 1
    I would guess that the down vote is because this is long and rambling.
    – bdb484
    Oct 20 '18 at 23:17
  • And on further reflection, it may also be that it's hard to understand the whole premise, which is basically that because you lied, the court should find you more credible. But it wasn't my vote, so it's hard to say.
    – bdb484
    Oct 23 '18 at 5:01

As I understand it, you're asking if the man's self-incrimination would give him enough credibility to warrant a reversal of his criminal conviction.

The answer is almost always going to be no. The trial court has the opportunity to see and hear the defendant and all the other witnesses, making real-time assessments if whether they look and sound like they're telling the truth.

Appellate courts usually do not have that opportunity. Because of that, they will almost always defer to a trial court's credibility assessments. In fact, I'd say that there is probably no question on which appellate courts are more deferential to trial courts than on credibility determinations.

Only in the most extreme scenarios should you expect to see a conviction reversed based on the reviewing court's disagreement on credibility. Such decisions are exceedingly rare.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.