87

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".


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 ...


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 ...


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 ...


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

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

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 ...


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 ...


7

Regardless of whether a defendant is a wife or husband in relation to a potential witness, the latter can always refuse to say jack or just go with the "I can't recall" thing. What, will they torture them? What's the point of these "privileges" then? There are actually two separate spousal privileges, the confidential communications ...


7

The other answers make good points. A few others that haven't been raised: There are filing fees involved in filing a lawsuit that while modest, still prevent the number of suits filed from reaching absurdly infinite levels. To file one lawsuit a minute for two days will cost you about $720,000+ before considering the requirements to hire process servers. ...


7

That book provides advice on legal writing; it is not a source of rules for legal writing. Rather than repeatedly identifying themselves using their full name, parties customarily refer to themselves in the third person, e.g., "The defendant refused to waive his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial." In practice, though, pro se litigants ...


7

“Like the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are as binding as any statute duly enacted by Congress, and federal courts have no more discretion to disregard the Rules' mandate than they do to disregard constitutional or statutory provisions." Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 66 (1991). The civil and criminal ...


7

It means that the case will not be heard in full, and it can happen for various possible reasons: The defendant files a "motion to dismiss" which is granted (for example if the plaintiff failed to comply with some court rule which makes the case irreparably unfair). The plaintiff voluntarily drops the case (for example if a settlement with the ...


5

Why can't self-represented litigants use “I” to refer to myself? It is perfectly lawful for a pro se litigant to refer to himself using the personal pronoun. Isn't it tedious and weird to keep calling themselves as "Plaintiff", or their own full name? No. In fact, using the terms plaintiff and defendant tends to streamline the reading of one's ...


5

About the same as it is for engineers, doctors, architects, hairdressers, plumbers etc. to be collegiate It’s a job. You have shared interests (at least your profession). Why wouldn’t you be friendly? It’s your client’s who have a dispute; not you.


5

Can a court order a large asset to be sold if the defendent lost the case on a relatively small amount? Say a defendent owns land worth $200,000. The defendant lost the case and has to pay $9,000. He does not have any money to pay. Could courts order the land to be sold? In most U.S. law jurisdictions, yes, a high value assets can be ordered sold to satisfy ...


4

When you are giving evidence on the stand you cannot just refuse to say jack or just go with the "I can't recall" thing" Refusing to tell what you know would be contempt of court. Lying would be perjury. Spousal privilege simply frees the spouse from having to either commit one of those or testify against their spouse.


3

Happens all the time, as the pool of local lawyers in certain specialties might be low. In fact, not only can lawyers be friendly with each other, but they can also hang out after work while working on the same case. In the often cited film "My Cousin Vinny", the titular Vinny, a defense attorney, is cordially invited to go hunting with the ...


3

Having worked on pleading automation at a collections law firm, I have firsthand experience with informal rate-limiting procedures that were employed in some US courts during the aftermath of the foreclosure crisis. Given that we were filing in excess of 50 cases per day at times, certain court clerks issued rules limiting the number of cases that could be ...


3

Ohwilleke's answer provides the basic modern rundown of the theoretical basis for spousal privilege (or privileges, rather, as his answer also details). But we can also jump into the way-back machine to determine where that came from. We'll start with: Protection against self-incrimination Common law jurisdictions trace their origins to the common law of ...


3

Judges generally have wide discretion on scheduling issues. If Rob's law firm X was indeed closed on the scheduled date that is reason enough to postpone, and that kind of postponement need not be argues if the Judge is satisfied. In any case what would Bob's lawyer say in response? It is a little surprising that this was not first mentioned by X, but ...


3

You have asked two quite different questions there. I’ll address the second part first (where Rob argues for the decision in Bob’s favour to be overturned in his response to Bob's appeal), because it’s easier. For both parties to partially succeed at trial, and both parties to contend on appeal that they should have been wholly successful, is not that ...


3

No Only the ratio decidendi of a case sets binding precedent. By definition, that has to be in the decision of the court’s majority because that’s what decided the case. If a minority decision disagrees with the majority on ratio, then the majority is the binding precedent. If the point is obiter, then it’s merely persuasive, not binding, irrespective of ...


3

Ethical rules for lawyers are enforced by a separate committee or board or department (states vary) to which complaints can be made by lawyers and members of the public. If a complaint appears to have merit, the board has someone prosecute the case in a quasi-criminal manner, which the board hears like a court, subject to an appeal at some point. The ...


3

When it comes to the obligation to tell the truth, there isn't all that much difference between a lawyer's obligations and those of a pro se litigant -- at least as far objective truth. But not every question has a single truthful answer. Professionalism rules impose some higher standards on lawyers in cases that are a bit murkier than just asking, "...


3

Short Answer The concern raised is a real one, but it is much less serious than one might naively expect. Long Answer Precedents Apply Only To Resolve The Legal Arguments Presented On The Facts Found To Exist At Trial A Bad Lawyer's Failure To Develop Facts At Trial Isn't A Serious Problem A precedent determines the law as applied to a particular set of ...


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