86

That will amount to refusal to testify. The judge will warn you that, for a summoned witness, a refusal to testify means contempt of court and you will be asked that question again. After a second "No" you go to jail for contempt of court, and the trial will most likely be adjourned until you make up your mind to answer "Yes".


61

In order to accommodate various objections that have arisen in recent generations, in general: You are allowed to "affirm" instead of "swear" You do not have to say "so help me God" You do not have to place your hand on a Bible or any object These variances are often allowed by statute. A witnessed "solemn affirmation" has the same legal consequences as ...


45

Yes, it's actally happened. Several outfits have filed cases by the hundreds, and they were even literally photocopies. And it works rather well, until one victim stands up for what's right - and then the house of cards comes tumbling down. Molski For instance, due to a minor ADA issue (toilet paper roll 2" too low etc.) poor Jarek Molski was injured ...


42

I think you should take "the whole truth" as simply short for "all the truth known to the witness, within the limits of the rules of evidence as applied by the judge." and take "nothing but the truth" to mean "no intentionally false statements included". I cannot be sure, but I suspect the response in the question ...


39

In Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), the Supreme Court held that Neither a State nor the Federal Government can... pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against nonbelievers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs. In this ...


30

What happens if I negatively answer the court oath regarding the truth? You would be given few more opportunities to rectify, very likely with the judge pressing you to answering properly. But a persistent negative will put you in [direct,] civil contempt of court for disrupting the proceedings. It is called direct because the seemingly vexatious conduct is ...


30

In England & Wales A witness who attends court but who refuses to take the oath or affirmation, or who improperly refuses to give evidence, is liable to be fined or imprisoned. In the magistrates’ court, s.97(4) Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 enables the court to impose up to one month’s imprisonment or a fine up to £2500 for any of the following acts ...


29

The ceremonial hammer is called a gavel and usually looks like this: Stock image used with permission (Gavels in India and in the U.S. Senate which received its gavel as a diplomatic gift from India, don't have handles.) It is used in both courts and public meetings (most often city council meetings or legislative body committee meetings, but also, for ...


27

There is no limit, per se, but intentional disruption of the courts is regarded as Vexatious Litigation and in some countries (the united-kingdom for example) the court may prohibit a person from making any further applications or carrying out litigation without permission. Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought solely to harass or subdue an ...


23

Some of the documents are here. As document 61 of the trial, the government motion for bench trial, argues, There is no constitutional right to a jury trial for criminal contempt charges resulting in a sentence of imprisonment of six months or less. Arpaio responds in document 62 that Defendant Arpaio acknowledges that there is no constitutional ...


17

Would a U.S court honor his request, based on his prior commitment? You are not specifying the purpose of the court hearing, or whether Adam is pro se litigant (which sounds unlikely if this plaintiff is a movie star). If plaintiff Adam is represented by an attorney, Adam's presence is unnecessary in most or all court hearings. In fact, typically neither ...


17

It's the whole truth of your experience If I were to say "I saw John going into the store", in reality it may have been someone else, or they may have simply walked past the store (if you saw them from an angle for that to be possible). Or maybe you were just hallucinating or misremembering. But it is a true account of (your memory of) what you ...


16

Can a jury render a verdict that contravenes with binding precedent? Yes, but (if it is a guilty verdict) it will be overturned on appeal. The appeal court will say that the jury's verdict was not one which any reasonable jury could have made on the basis of the evidence and the instructions in the case. As explained in Dave D's answer, the trial judge ...


16

In Germany there are fairly wide-ranging reasons to legally refuse to testify; close relatives and spouses don't need to help prosecuting their loved ones and it is legally impossible to put an accused under oath. Even if not accused, one can legally refuse to testify (let alone under oath) if that statement would be self-incriminating. But your question ...


13

Unless you received an order from the court prohibiting contact, it might be legal; but it's probably not the best idea. Let the lawyers handle it Attorneys have far better, more effective means of dealing with this situation than the course of action you describe. Lawyers have productive tools to accomplish the job and they know how to use them. For ...


13

What if someone purposefuly tries to file a court case every minute to disrupt the court can the person be punished in India or USA? There is no official rate limit, but in the USA that person might be blacklisted as vexatious litigant. This blacklisting triggers a "filter-out" process intended to validate that the lawsuit is not blatantly ...


13

Liability for perjury is governed by the language of the applicable perjury statute and the related case law, not by the language of the oath itself. The situation in the case of contempt of court is similar. For legal purposes, you either swear or affirm something, or you don't. It is a binary matter that doesn't depend upon the exact language of the oath ...


11

According to Baldwin v. New York (1970), "the federal right to jury trial attaches where an offense is punishable by as much as six months' imprisonment" (1). That, is a crime is considered petty unless the maximum punishment exceeds six months' imprisonment. Moreover, Arpaio is being charged with criminal contempt. According to 42 U.S. Code § 1995, "the ...


10

Here is an article at the American Bar Association web site that helps explain the instructions to a jury. From that article: The judge will point out that his or her instructions contain the interpretation of the relevant laws that govern the case, and that jurors are required to adhere to these laws in making their decision, regardless of what the ...


10

A case can be "dismissed" at (most) any time (however, the further along in the process a case is, the less likely a judge will allow a case to be dismissed without very good reason). A case can be dismissed with or without "prejudice", which in this legal context means essentially "finality". A case dismissed with prejudice ...


9

Your hypothetical contains a false premise. Witnesses are not allowed to make "opening remarks." Witnesses are only allowed to answer questions (while under oath) — not make remarks. Any "remarks" or statements that are not responsive to a question will most likely either be the subject of an objection and, therefore, not allowed. Or otherwise ignored ...


9

Advisory opinions violate the separation-of-powers doctrine. The "case or controversy" clause helps enforce this separation. The judicial branch is responsible for resolving legal disputes by interpreting and applying existing law. In doing so, it may incidentally modify or extend the law. Courts are only supposed to do this to the extent necessary to ...


9

To extend what @ohwilleke said, I have a little bit more information that's hopefully useful. Gavels are a feature of U.S. courts: they don't exist in courtrooms of the UK or Commonwealth countries (e.g. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.; link from the UK Judiciary, but also found in Wikipedia articles on Canadian courts). While doing some brief (couple ...


9

Whether they are admissible as evidence is up to the trier of law The “trier of law” (judge) decides what evidence is admissible according to the rules of evidence. Documents of most kinds are not admissible on their own (exceptions include “business” documents like invoices and receipts). To be admissible, someone (presumably you) has to testify as to ...


8

This is largely congruent with* the doctrine of laches. The basic idea, under common law, is that you can lose rights by failing to assert them. This is generally important for many reasons, but specifically in the case of appeals: The argument should have been brought before the trial court. Justice is not a game, but it's important to recognize that ...


8

I have beaten all but one of my traffic tickets just by going to court. In one case, the judge threw out the charge because he couldn't read the officer's handwriting on the ticket. In another, the officer charged that I was parked in a "no parking" zone on a particular street (at night), but gave a cross street where parking was, in fact, allowed.


8

What are the things that I should prepare for this session, in terms of order of dress, language, content? Dress In an actual court room, suit and tie is preferred for men and formal dress for women for lawyers and professionals. Your "Sunday best" or what you would wear to work on a typical day would be appropriate if you don't have a suit and tie or ...


8

There is no such law mandating this layout, nor is there any law permitting the defendant to demand a change to it. The arrangement seems most likely to have been driven by security concerns when courts began removing "the dock" and letting the defendant past the bar to sit with his attorneys. One court has also concluded that it was meant to assist the ...


7

First, Judge Judy is not a real court. Judith Sheindlin was a real judge, but then she retired to be on TV. The show depicts arbitration proceedings, which both parties agreed to. If both parties want it, and if he agrees, you can have arbitration proceedings where R. Lee Ermey presides and keeps order by means of screaming at you and ordering calisthenics ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible