A witness, in theory, should not take a side. They should not be prejudiced or biased. They are only there to describe what they see, hear or witness in objective terms. They are only there to answer questions that were asked and not to give any additional information or opinion.
All of the eyewitnesses for the prosecution of the Floyd case are clearly biased. For example, the firefighter that described Floyd as being small and skinny. She was also combative with the judge and the defense instead of answering questions objectively as they were asked.
Are there scientific research done on how jurors respond to these types of "witnesses"? Do they become less credible to the jurors?
Do jurors, in general, have the IQ points to be able to distinguish between these 2 statements:
- I saw a police officer with his knee on a man's neck.
- I saw a police officer killing man by placing his knee on the man's neck.
Are jurors able to discern that statement 1 is an objective description of reality while statement 2 is a biased description stemming from the witness' personal prejudice?