28

Your ability to assert your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is not limited to cases where you are on trial or have been accused of a crime. Your ability to assert that right is also not an absolute bar against being ordered to testify: if you are given immunity, you can be forced to testify. Alice cannot hold Bob in contempt – only the ...


13

This really depends if Alice's questions are during Direct Examination or Cross Examination. If direct, Alice called Bob to the stand and Bob is testifying to his account of the events in support of Alice's client. Because of this Alice should be asking Bob to speak more on the matters and designed to elicit answers that are Bob's own words. Ordinarily ...


7

No. There is a clear distinction between: evidence (or testimony), which consists of statements of fact given by witnesses on oath (subject to prosecution for perjury), governed by the rules of evidence, and which the jury is required to consider but not accept (in the sense that a verdict which is not supported by the evidence can be set aside on appeal), ...


7

Will he break any laws by saying that (assuming the actual truth cannot be found out)? The statement made outside the courtroom is not itself perjury, since it is not made under oath. But that doesn't mean that there wouldn't be legal consequences. It would be powerful evidence in a perjury prosecution (surely enough for a conviction even standing alone ...


7

TLDR: the 5th Amendment is big dynamite, almost entirely made of unintended consequences. There are much better ways to do this. Anyway, Bob swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That prohibits him from giving either of the answers he is being railroaded into, so he should say "I cannot answer in this format". Bob needs to ...


5

Yes. The jurisdiction I am familiar with is England and Wales. Conviction requires evidence (witness testimony is evidence) which proves the case "beyond reasonable doubt". It is open to the jury to find the witness so convincing that they find that they are sure the defendant committed the crime. In general of course, prosecutors prefer to have some ...


4

The defence in a criminal case has no obligation to inform the prosecution of anything. The onus is on the prosecution to provide the evidence to convict and the defence doesn't have to and indeed shouldn't help them do it. The defence can and probably would use conflicting statements by a prosecution witness to discredit that witness in the eyes of the ...


3

In the US, Yes, generally In the US an accused can, in most cases, be convicted on the testimony of a single witness, who can be the victim. There are a few exceptions. Article II section 3 of the US Constitution provides: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid ...


3

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 ...


3

The defense has every right to do the best for its client. Unless it is specifically barred by either the law or by the judge, the defense can do anything and everything to protect its client. Without informing the prosecution beforehand, and without reference to the impact that it might have on anyone else (assuming it's within the law). In the "The ...


3

The judge's instructions state: You have been allowed to take notes during the trial. You may take those notes with you to the jury room. You should not consider these notes binding or conclusive, whether they are your notes or those of another juror. The notes should be used as an aid to your memory and not as a substitute for it. It is your ...


2

The California jury instructions for the crime of perjury give more detail on what it means to commit perjury: it's not just that you make a statement that is false, you have to willfully state that the information is true even though you know it is false. If you have a belief that you will be convicted for perjury (or any crime) by testifying, you may ...


2

Disclaimer: All of the following should be preceded by "In theory". The reality is oftentimes very different because some or many courts themselves disavow the law. Does the subject of subpoena have to give a reason when refusing to testify? Yes. The witness would need to argue in a "motion to quash subpoena" the reason(s) why he should be excused from ...


1

You did not give the police "written testimony", you gave them a statement. Testimony is given under oath or affirmed as true under penalty of perjury, a statement is just a statement. The statement is not part of the "proof". Proof is an evidentiary burden that must be met by the evidence to obtain a result. If this is really a criminal matter, the police ...


1

The Testimony Of Children Under Oath Do Children As Young As Seven Years Old Testify In U.S. Courts? Could it actually happen in American courts? Yes. It can and does happen on a regular basis, although a seven year old is at the very lower end of the range at which children are called to testify as witnesses with any regularity. Any witness which a ...


1

I have no idea about what the movie implied, but the courts generally do not allow a child to be put on the stand in the way that an adult witness to a crime is. The first question that has to be asked is whether the child is "competent;" in particular they have to know the difference between telling the truth and lying, and they have to promise to tell the ...


1

Yes Children can be (and are) required to give evidence in courts all over the world including the USA. There are generally special rules in place to protect them such as by using video link and not allowing aggressive cross-examination. They may or may not be sworn and the court usually investigates that the child understands the difference between truth ...


1

How can one document a conversation? You might want to email your interlocutors reflecting the relevant details of what was spoken ("Per our conversation [...]", "For future reference [...]", and the like) and who said what. In that same email, you should encourage the interlocutors to reply if they deem it necessary to clarify --also in writing-- any ...


1

So the other answers are very good, but I'd like to put it to a practical scenario. Suppose you are testifying against Bob (you are a witness for the prosecution) who is being tried for the murder of Alice. You testify you saw Bob kill Alice and run away. You could identify it was Bob because you and Bob are coworks. You see him every day, and you don't ...


1

Assuming the unavailability of the witness was not caused by the defendant, attempts to introduce the affidavit would be deemed hearsay and furthermore inconsistent with the defendant's right to face their accuser. The best recourse would be to show the actual place the defendant lived. You could also introduce other circumstantial evidence like that other ...


1

The Opinion Rule What you refer to as ipse dixit is dealt with by the opinion rule. In summary, witnesses are required to testify to facts, not opinions - it is for the judge/jury to reason from facts to conclusions. In New South Wales, this is stated in s76 of the Evidence Act 1995 which codified the common law rule applicable in most common law ...


1

In general, no, this is called "Hearsay" evidence which is basically an out of court statement. There are specific incidents, however, that could require someone to testify to statements someone else made. For example, if Alice is testifying against Bob, she is allowed to say "Charlie told me 'Bob shot me' before he died." In this incident, Charlie is ...


1

The general answer to this is the application of perjury laws and the typically stiff penalties associated with them. The fact that one party has recordings would strongly discourage the witness from faking a memory lapse, especially if the witness knows about them in advance. If the witness proceeds anyway, the recordings could probably be used to impeach ...


1

Defendant pays witness to say “I don't remember”. What can be done to prevent/deal with this? Will it help if: Before Matt "forgot" everything, he told what he saw to other people, and they are happy to testify that? That constitutes hearsay evidence, which needs to satisfy certain conditions in order to be admissible in New Zealand. ...


1

Not in England and Wales, because the Judge cannot give testimony of any type. An expert witness gives hearsay evidence (that is to say, he gives an opinion, not an eye-witness's evidence): necessarily so, because he was not present at the scene of the crime (or, in a civil case, he did not see the events at issue occur). But an expert is the principal ...


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