What bothers me is that a witness swears to tell the whole truth, but lawyers often seem to trim your reply to meet their needs, which seems to require a violation of the oath. They aren't letting me tell the whole truth.
@@razony in the early 90's i was subpoenaed to court as a witness. The prosecutor asked me 2 questions and when i started to give my detailed answer, he kept on saying "Yes or No". On the 3rd question, he did the same thing to me when i attempted to expound on the answer. I turned to the judge and said "Your Honor, a few minutes ago I promised to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and this gentleman isn't allowing me to" The judge paused for a few seconds and told me to give my full response. The prosecutor ended his line of questions and had the most confused look on his face!
That's why cross examination is a standard in every courtroom. If the district attorney just wants the yes no answers, The defense attorney is able to give you the time to elaborate by asking more open-ended questions. Either sides job is to make a point that resonates and sways The thinking of the jury, or whatever entity is making judgment. You're being asked short poignant yes no questions intentionally, so that the pacing can allow for someone to logically follow The idea that the counselor is putting forth. It's literally what makes their job doable. Have you ever listened to a story from someone (that could be either gender will say) where every new detail of a story has its own backstory that requires elaboration away from the main narrative. You do that just a couple times and people lose their desire and even sometimes ability to continue following the main narrative. When you know all the ins and outs that part actually makes a lot of sense. There are a lot of ways to get screwed in the courtroom but that's typically not one of them. Unless your testimony is something neither side wants to hear in it's entirety , which im guessing happens once in a while. Even still, your story can be heard you just have to find the right audience. If you're trying to bring to light a crime that is not the one on trial, should be talking to some law enforcement entity, not the courts, yet.
I actually did say "No". I have a seizure disorder, and following a seizure my memories are absent, or hazy, or confused, and can be entirely false. I was being asked to testify regarding something that happened in front of me about half an hour after regaining consciousness from a seizure. The judge asked if I had an issue with the oath. I replied that I cannot swear that anything I think I remember is accurate, or even happened at all. I then handed him a statement from my neurologist, which I had already provided to the prosecutor when first told I would have to testify. The judge thanked me for coming and excused me.
You bring up a very nice point here. The purpose of the oath is in part for immediately establishing the nature of the relationship between the witness and the court, and to bring conflicts of interest out before getting started.
My step son had a seizure disorder, and he described the post-seizure time just like you did. He didn't necessarily know what was happening around him. One time (his first seizure that we witnessed), we were driving, hit traffic, and found a cop. He called for an ambulance, and a firetruck showed up to block traffic for no good reason. The ambulance transported him to the hospital. He only had a vague recollection of maybe some flashing lights, and waking up in the hospital. The time from the seizure to waking up in the hospital was maybe 30 to 45 minutes. The same with other seizures, but once we knew what was happening, we could just take care of him wherever we were. He just didn't know how he moved from where the seizure happened, to his bed, and why we were sitting with him.
Facinating thing is the only people required to tell the truth is the public. The state is in fact allowed to lie and withhold in many many circumstances. Lived it. Even the bailiff.
you can lie all you like when you're not under oath. tell people you're an astronaut. a chess grandmaster. say you won an olympic gold in table tennis and the heavyweight championship of the world in the same year and no one can do a thing about it, except laugh at you. likewise, when a politician is put under oath in a courtroom or certain government hearings they are under the same obligation, but when they're not under oath we can expect the usual torrent of lies.
@@-yeme- They might be technically under the same oath but the difference is the average joe actually gets in trouble for it, the government actors don't. Nice try kid.
Reminds me of the old joke : "Do you swear to tell the truth?" "What happens if I lie?" "You'll go to jail for two years." "Then I'm going to lie." "You admit you are going to commit perjury?" "Two years is less than I would get if I told the truth."
A lot like the joke about ancient chinese armies. "What's the penalty for being late..." "Death..." What's the penalty for rebelling..." "Death..." "We can't make it ontime..."
I don't think you can claim "double jeopardy" for contempt matters. They could repeatedly drag you back in and attempt to extract your testimony; or leave your sorry ass in the slammer until you cave in.
In the UK I once took the oath and later a barrister kept insisting that I answered Yes or No. I asked the bench if I was released from my oath (hiatus ensued) and I pointed out that my oath had been to say the WHOLE truth. and that I did not believe that answering either Yes or No represented the whole truth. I got to say my piece and was never again told to answer just Yes or No.
Excellent reply. KInd of like the things that are sent to you over the internet now asking about your experience that you had with them but giving only yes and no questions.
Depends on the question. in some instances the question is only asking a yes or no response. "where you in line at the mcdonalds on 4trh street on the night of ##/##?" yes or no is the whole truth to that statement. "What were you doing the night of ##, starting aroud ?" would allow you to elaborate on where you were, and what you were doing at the time. Basically opposing counsel wants to trap you into yes/no answers to paint their side in favorable light" where as your side wants to allow you the ability to provide the picture they want to set.
Steve, If an attorney only lets you state yes or no, can you ask the judge to allow you to explain since the oath you took says the truth, the WHOLE truth and nothing but the truth. Sometimes a simple yes or no is not the WHOLE truth.
That’s the movie attorney. I think in a real court you can always turn the the judge and ask them if you can explain before answering. Disclaimer: never been in a court myself but I know that movies usually exaggerate or oversimplify for dramatic purposes.
Do you swear to tell the truth? " I don't swear your honor." Will you tell the truth ? "Tell the truth what?," Will you answer honestly? "Honestly" (knuck knuck knuck)
I was deposed recently. When asked this question, I gave a qualified answer that wasn’t a direct yes, but qualified that to the best of my ability given that memories have been proven to be malleable, I might phrase something poorly or inadvertently say the wrong thing, and a couple of other qualifiers based on technicalities that I have seen get people perjured. The recorder was directed to say that I had responded with “yes”. I felt like they had perjured my perjury statement.
In 1973 G. Gordon Liddy was called to testify in front of a Congressional committee that was investigating Watergate. He was asked, “Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?” Liddy famously told the committee: “No.”
The courts upheld that Law Enforcement doesn't have to tell the truth and can lie to you yet to lie to them is illegal. This is NOT equal justice under the law.
Law enforcement cannot (legally) commit perjury (lying to the court). They can, however, lie to you under other circumstances (such as during an interrogation).
@@eriksmith2514 Context is everything in sentencing hearings. Sorry, I don't connect the dots between lying and the added punishment. You'll need to elaborate.
I asked a child why they thought you need to raise your right hand in court to swear an oath...she responded that this was to show that your fingers were not crossed. Excellent reasoning.
@@DsLink1306 The other hand is on a book that says a dude managed to get a pair of every species on the planet on a little boat and keep them alive to repopulate the entire planet after the planet was completely submerged.
whichi is odd because juries can acquit based on their conscience and not the law if they choose to do so. It's called nullification. I guess they don't want word getting out that you have the right to overturn a law if you believe it is wrong. It is my personal belief that because of this right, jurors are the single most powerful people in the country for a short period of time....government certainly doesn't want you to know that.
@@therationalanarchistI served on a grand jury where we would indict people for felonies. I thought it was rigged. The DA told all the sheep to pick a retired trooper to be jury foremen. Then they told us we should just indict everyone and let it go to court. I brought up the fact that we were the people that stop people from going to trial and jail on stupid laws. With my suggestion we didn’t indict a guy. I was relieved of duty. I even wrote the state ombudsman office but never heard back. After that I don’t have any trust in our judicial system. The next time they tried to get me to serve jury duty I told them they were crooked as hell and it’s a waste of my time. I also told them I don’t trust the way they indict people because I had first hand experience on the process. I never got called again.
How can you be held in contempt. You showed up. You agree to testify. And you are thus fulfilling the court order. You just aren’t swearing that everything you say will be truthful. 😅 They shouldn’t ask it like a question - “ Do you agree…” if agreeing isn’t optional. It’s up to the jury to decide if you’re your testimony was truthful. Also, it’s up to the prosecuting atty to ‘prove’ beyond a reasonable doubt…
My nautural person is here but the corporate entity with the name in capital letters reserves all rights as per the black law book and the shadow proclamation and the order of captain crunch of the gold fringe flag.
I think there's a bigger point being missed here. Saying "no" to the oath is NOT the same as refusing to testify. If I'm called as a witness in a trial and asked to take the oath, I can answer "no" and still continue to testify. The real questions are: Will the judge allow me to testify if I answer "no" during the oath? Can the judge hold me in contempt of court if my resonse to the oath is "no" even though I am not refusing to testify? Does the court have the authority to compel me to be truthful if I answer "no" which itself is a truthful answer if I do not plan to tell the truth?
In the eyes of the court, saying "no" to the oath IS the same as refusing to testify, despite it technically not being the same thing at all. To answer all three quickly: 1. No. 2. Yes. 3. See #1, you are being compelled the moment you receive the subpoena.
@@SomeIdiota I'm not sure I agree with that. If I'm asked to take the oath and I reply "no" but I tell the judge that I am willing to testify, I don't think the judge can arbitrarily decide to ignore my willingnes to testify.
@@ecollazo67 It isn't arbitrary, again in the eyes of the court. You are summoned to testify truthfully. Whether or not you do so truthfully is up to you, at your own risk, but the ritual of putting your hand on the bible and saying "Yes," is the entry fee. Doing otherwise is tantamount to saying "I will not testify". I do think that the oath aspect should be altered to have less room for pedantry, because I am on definitely on the side of "If you leave room for me to do something, then do not allow me to do said thing, then what is the point?" A simple "Will you testify to the matters at hand?" should suffice.
@@SomeIdiota The video stated there were ways (declarations) to get around the "oath" (not always sworn over the christian bible) though there was a caveat that it is generally due to it being against a witness' religion; as someone previously religious, I'd be uncomfortable with giving an oath, though this resides as more as a superstition than anything else
I once refused to testify. I went to court over a traffic ticket. They tried to swear me in but I said "No". I told the judge that I was there to represent myself and did not intend to testify. The judge was surprised but allowed everything to proceed. It ended in my favor.
I used a similar strategy. I asked the cop "do you recall _____" for a bunch of things about the stop, starting with things like "do you recall doing traffic enforcement on that freeway around that time?". It was several months later, so the cop might have trouble remembering details. After he said yes to four or five, I started asking questions about what I wanted him to remember. The judge made it clear they didn't like finding me not guilty, but the law and the testimony gave them no choice. (Without compromising their integrity). The first few things I ask the cop about definitely happened. I then asked slightly more detailed questions to help the cop remember. The last one or two things I asked about may or may not have actually happened - the copy said "yeah I think that's about right" or similar wording. :)
“Above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your 'yes' be yes and your 'no' be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation” (James 5:12).
That's why there's an option to affirm rather than swear. Judges rarely put it in what they tell you to say, but I'm sure there'd be no problem with doing it.
Stranger than fiction true story ! My brother, 17 at the time gets a ticket for having a car on the road with no insurance that was parked on the road in front of dad's house. The cop was driving by , ran the plate, an came a knocking, an gave my brother the traffic ticket after school when he got home. However before he was given this ticket the cop took him for a little ride around the block asking him to rat out where the bush partying is going on an possibly who's selling weed, an he can make this traffic ticket disappear if he becomes his informant. Brother laughed an said fuck no, see you in court ! Court day came an my brother never bothered to show, but my dad did as he was subpoenaed, an the crowns attorney told the judge the accused has not in court today, but his father is. Judge called out dad's name, asked him , " well sir what do you have to say for your son" The priceless reply 👌 ( dad ) sorry judge, I'm confused, pushing his glasses up the bridge of his nose, reaching into his pocket, pulling out the subpoena, taking his time in doing so an unfolds it , looking at it for a minute ( that's a long time to keep a judge waiting) an finally said , " the crowns asked me here today an I'm assuming as a witness ((FOR)) the Crown, an now you asked what do I have to say ((FOR )) him ? I'm confused, ca you please clarify my role here today please " Lol, why's your son not in court today asked the judge. Dad said your guess is as good as mine, but probably he didn't have the $450 for the fine he's not guilty of. Judge asks what do mean by that , not guilty, is the car his ? Yes of course it's his, but the ticket implied he parked it on the street, ad in drove it out of the driveway an parked it out front of the house, an nobody's going to testify here today to seeing him drive without insurance, as the ticket under section ???? Says , so the fact is I got sick of the kid rebuilding the engine in my driveway, blocking my access to My garage, an I pushed it out on the road , when the cop saw the car he, knows it doesn't run, an then tried to blackmail my son to Rat our his friends, assuming they party, with illegal booze an illegal drugs , an car in question the 68 Mustan fastback has plates an insurance, transferred from his other vehicle , so what the hell is going on here judge? , judge called the crowns lawyer an the cop to the bench, after this little meeting, the judge dismissed the charges an the case against my brother, told my dad he's free to leave now thanks coming today, your sons lucky to have a dad like you,. Dad - not so fast your honorable justice, I'm going to need copies of today's transcripts, names an contact numbers of everyone in this room right now so I can subpoena them for my lawsuit. This time the judge was pushing his glasses up the bridge of his nose, an replied, you can pick it up from the courts clerk office in a week or so, an said GOOD LUCK! Dad ( the ol pitbull) ended up with 25k, 4 years later, once he bites he never let's go lol cop got fired, judge was transferred out of town 👍
I've once done 90 days for just this, told the judge flat out didn't care lock me up not saying a word. Even under threat of life in prison not making me talk
I had a hearing with MDHHS. When I was asked if I swear or affirm to tell the truth I said that I neither swear or affirm but I will tell the truth. The hearing proceeded.
When I clerked for a federal judge many years ago, we had a witness in a criminal case who appeared and had religious objections to both swearing an oath or making an affirmation. He was willing to testify but wouldn't swear or affirm. The judge looked that the lawyer who called him and said the guy was disqualified as a witness. Nothing else happened to him.
Is there a reason why your judge simply didn't ask the witness whether he intended to tell the truth, and take the simple answer to that question as an affirmation?
You christians, you never know what your Bible actually means. Jesus was specifically talking about the grand oaths that were in fashion at the time. Especially by the Pharisaic Jews..... It has absolutely nothing to do with swearing to tell the truth in court. LOL And please, don't say anything about not being able to "swear" on the Bible. That's ALSO BULLSHIT. The word swear has 2 meanings. You can't do the second meaning of swear, but you absolutely can do the first definition.... It's always the ignorant who are most eager to express themselves and how much they believe in something. Oh, and btw, 2000 years ago Jesus looked a man in the eye and said he would come back, before everyone alive at that moment had died. That was 2,000 years ago. So you need to pull out either a 2000 year old Jew waiting for jesus, or you need to pull Jesus out and show him to us... Otherwise, the Bible itself proves it fake.
I mean that's the way I would go. I don't swear allegiance to a flag either. But that doesn't mean I'm not supportive of my country. I would simply say I always tell the truth, but I don't make oaths for religious reasons. 🤷
@@throckwoddle Can he be charged with perjury if he never took an oath? I can see testimony without risk of perjury being of low value in most courtrooms.
Follow up to this, if they can force you to take an oath, under threat, can you specify that you are taking the oath under duress? They are forcing you, under threat of jail, to enter into a legally binding contract against your will. A contract that if you violate it, you will also be jailed. This would never be a legally binding contract in any other situation.
Try this: Require the magistrate and prosecution attorney to place their oaths of office , their BAR memberships , their license to practice law, and their Bond numbers into the record. Conflict of interest if the judge represents a common party with an attorney. Conflicting oaths between state and bar. No such thing as a license to practice law / no legal standing without it. If no bond they are not in fiduciary honor. If bonded place a tort claim based on deprevation of rights 42 usc 1983 . Or otger applicable charge. Motion to dismiss with prejudice.
I think Steve is incorrect. The question was asked if you can say NO to the oath. Then Steve twists it around to say you have to testify. The person is not refusing to testify, but refusing to say they will tell the truth.
Then when they produce the surveillance tape, and you are on it looking at the crime in question, the police, and prosecutor will charge you with obstruction of justice, and subpoena you to court anyway, and force you to say that you saw something since they have a video tape of you with your eyes open looking at the crime!
@@christophermyers8157 Lol. "I blinked and missed it all." "I was sleep deprived and my eyes get bleary and blurry when I'm tired. I could barely see where I was walking, your Honor." "I got dust in my eye." "There was a glare, and I'm really light sensitive. Couldn't get a good look." In other words... 🖕 It is impossible to prove that someone was paying attention when something happened and that they weren't just staring off into space, lost in their thoughts and not seeing what's going on around them. There are always "what if"s, and you can come up with a bunch of stuff that says, "oh, well, they're gonna do (thing) to make me testify." Yet, they frequently don't do those (things.) And, you can always say to the judge and jury that your feel your being threatened to testify in a way that's acceptable to the court and prosecutor even though you didn't see it, and you'll be all over the TV telling everyone exactly that regardless of any gag orders because they're clearly so corrupt that they're forcing you to testify to something you didn't see. At which point you become the massive headache that is about to get the whole trial overturned on appeals if they don't leave you alone... But hey, whatever. You go ahead and make up all the potential scenarios you want.
@@SaneNoMore Blah, blah, blah... But, but, muh morality! Sit and spin. I refuse to be involved in a incarcerating someone who broke a an administrative regulation, especially if I don't like the regulation. Nor have I ever agreed to give the government the right to force me to risk mine and my families lives testifying in a dangerous situation. If I can do what's right without endangering the things I care about, fine, I'll testify. If not, get fu¢ked.
I said "NO" after being asked if I could answer "yes or no" to the following questions. I said, no, I would not do that, and that I would answer any question the way I felt necessary to make my point and would not allow the attorney to determine any part of my answer. There was a long pause after that before the trial continued and I did not do as the attorney requested. Never allow them to determine your answer.
Most of the time, it's a yes or no question. Trying to qualify or explain your answer is just trying to escape the answer. You can be held in contempt for pulling this garbage... Good luck with it!
Yes or no questions can be a trap tho. "Do your parents know that you ate the muffins? Yes or no" While you never ate muffins in first place and saying yes or no misleads from truth.
@@mitsulang it worked. That's my point. If you don't realize that questions can be manipulated into you sounding guilty with only a yes or no answer, you better not have to defend yourself in court.
Even for a yes or no question, a lot of times there could be details or assumptions that were not clarified that could turn a yes into a no or vice versa without actually lying. Not your fault if the question was not phrased precisely enough. You didn't swear not to force the lawyer to waste an hour clarifying every question before he gets the answer he wants.
On DIRECT examination, leading questions are not permitted except for foundational questions. Leading questions are only permitted on CROSS examination, or direct examination of a "Hostile" witness.
Hey Steve I'm surprised you didn't mention the politicians answer when they don't want to comment on a question. "I don't recall." Seems to be an acceptable legal answer in almost any situation.
What I have always wondered about is when the oath they swear you in with includes "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Then during your response to an attorney's question, he cuts you off. Can you explain to the judge "I swore to tell the WHOLE truth and this liar is not allowing me to do so. I can't give any further testimony as it will violate my oath."
I apologize this is long but... To assert rights in our adversarial system, you just have to assert them. They will challenge you, they will f with you to get you to back down; the same as police. The reason is if they can get you to relinquish rights at the roadside, the court (appellate court) will say you cannot now claim them in court. Because the court system you are in is not under common law, but are statutory courts under statutory law. It is the same system from which ran early "pilgrim's" from the British legal system of the 1600's and political persecution. The Law Merchant. This system has been foisted upon our people since the 1913 Federal Reserve Act and its partner 1935 Social Security Act which together with the 14th Amendment creation of a New Type of citizenship, and finally the Act of 1871, was put into place after the US Bankruprcy in 1935, beginning in 1938 With the Tompkins vs Erie Railroad where the principal of standing made it imposible to sue absent a contract with the person against whom the claim was made. Tompkins was injured by a board sticking out of a rail car. Ultimately the Supreme Court ruled in essence, since Tomkins was nit engaged with Erie RR, he did not have standing to sue. So today, all kinds of evil can be done where injury is difficult to prove, like mass surveillance, and you have to prove it but you can't because "standing" kills your ability to obtain evidence through discovery.
@@fredjones43 You needn't apologize for a long reply, I don't mind at all. But since there is a lot to unpack I will limit myself for now to addressing the most glaring mistake. You seem to have misunderstood Erie Railroad Company v. Harry J. Tompkins or else confused it for another case. It did not involve the matter of standing. In Erie the U.S. Supreme Court held that that there is no general American federal common law and that U.S. federal courts must apply state law, not federal law, to lawsuits between parties from different states that involve no federal questions. The case was tried in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York which ruled for Tompkins and awarded him $30,000 in damages for the loss of his arm. Erie Railroad Co. appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which affirmed the trial court's verdict. The railroad then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court reversed the Second Circuit's decision and remanded the case, instructing the court to determine whether the railroad company's interpretation of Pennsylvania law had been correct. This was a landmark decision by the court, but I agree with Justice Butler who filed a dissenting opinion arguing that the majority had engaged in judicial activism. The Court went against the principle of party presentation, as neither party had suggested a need to review Swift but the Court took it up themselves to review and ultimately overturn it.
Jssamp; thank you for that excellent explanation and for correcting my misunderstanding. I appreciate it and look forward to anything further you have to say about my post. Fred Jones
There’s a bit of a trick to it. You provide the explanation prior to directly answering the question. At least that’s what I’ve been instructed to do by attorneys in the past
@@fredjones43 Interesting , that seems to run contrary to English Common Law which has a more generalised duty of care of a person (legal or otherwise) to an individual.
An agreement made under duress such as, "Sigh this or I wil hurt you.", is not binding. Then why is it binding when the judge tells you that you must agree to tell the truth or he will put you in jail?
Only if you are invoking “the inmate code”. Raise your left hand, “as an inmate it is my duty to inform you , that I will lie , cheat, or steal, or do whatever I have to do to beat the charges against me”. This is an actual quote by an inmate in a trial , in an Oregon court.
@@therocinante3443 Hmm I know a former President that couldn't tell the truth even if he tried because everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie.
I heard a story about someone who ignored a subpoena, their boss threatened to fire them if they didnt go to work and didnt care about a court order. When dragged into court they told the judge and their boss got in really deep shit really fast
What we see all the time is people develop amnesia and you hear a lot of " I don't recall." and "I don't know." or "It was someone else's responsibility, not mine."
Even with a lawsuit, imagine a customer slips and falls at the place you work. You are caaled to testify because you saw what happened. You know there is a good chance it you testify, you will be fired.
That would probably be an easy unlawful firing lawsuit since it’s illegal for them to fire you for testifying against you. That said they’d probably never give you a bonus, raise or promotion again and be ready to fire you as soon as they have an excuse so best to look for a new job.
What I've always wondered is why you are asked to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" when neither lawyer is going to ask questions to get at the whole truth. Both lawyers will ask a carefully crafted sequence of short-answer or yes-no questions to lead to a point or conclusion that may be anything but the truth. Lawyers often demand a yes or no when the truth is neither, or at least a yes or no answer gives a misrepresentation of the truth. I've often thought that I would say "no," and tell the judge I cannot swear that I will be allowed to tell "the whole truth."
"Yes or no answers only, please... do you still beat your wife?" Or "...do you still diddle small children?" if you *really* want to drive the point home.
I guess you could say, you are to tell the whole truth of the question being asked. Not to omit anything being asked of you. If there were an instance of "I would be lying if I answered only with what you're asking me" you'd be allowed to answer or you wouldn't answer at all.
The system exists so that highly paid people can benefit by asking trap questions that are intended to trick the liar. The bad news is that highly paid people will ALSO benefit from asking dumb people simple questions.
@@ygrittesnow1701 Yep, I'm with ya there buddy and speaking of words having different meaning than in common or assumed use have you ever seen the various definitions of "United States" and some strange definitions of the word "States"?
If only Congress operated like a real court. I have watched many many times in congressional hearings when a witness has taken an oath to testify and when asked a question they talk in circles about anything under the sun except the question and never do give an answer. Nothing EVER happens to those people!
@@eugenemorgan9920 They don't have to be - Lying to congress is something congress has the power to punish even without an oath. The problem is that this requires an investigation, then a report, then maybe a committee looking into the issue, then a vote - and congress doesn't want to do all that work, so lying just gets a frown.
@@korenn9381 I don't even think it gets that at this point. Usually when someone in Congress has their lips moving, they're not telling the truth. Seems to be the (unfortunately) accepted 'American Way', at this point..... Right Santos? (Yes, he's under indictment. Let me ask you, if you or I had committed 1/2 of the crimes he's accused of, would they let us keep our job and go about our day? I'm going to guess no. Not to worry though, affluenza is alive and well here in our class-based 'classless' society.) Parties will lie, change the rules to benefit them, or just not answer anything they don't want to so that it's impossible to actually suss out a situation. Almost like they're doing some seriously shady stuff and don't want people to be able to figure it out or something. Hmmm... Not to worry though, [other side of the political coin] has the answer if we'd just vote them in! They'll....well, they do the exact same thing with different words and possibly more jingoistic and racist hate involved. We love our jingoism and racism here in the States, and it shows. Remember folks, vote early and vote often for [your party of choice even though they're the same]! You're really making a difference out there!
I had a family member fail to show up to court after being subpoenaed. My family member got to spend the next ~14 days in jail until the next hearing so The State could guarantee they would be present. They released them that afternoon after their testimony. The prosecutor and defense eventually reached a settlement so my family member, as well as many other individuals, would not have to testify again. ...And the reason my family member didn't want to testify? They couldn't get the day off from work and couldn't afford to lose their job. Still lost their job. Lost their apartment too because they couldn't pay rent. Still a touchy subject 30+ years later.
Well, if they did show up, and their employer tried to fire them for that, the Judge would have had the employer dragged into court and explain why they did so... This has happened and judges are never nice about it. You can't stop a person from preforming their civic duties, and doing so will see you in jail, as you are obstructing justice, which is a felony.
I had this happen to a friend. He was out of the country and couldn't be back in time for the trial and was thrown in jail for some time after the initial trial, lost his job, lost his car, lost his house, and spent years getting out of debt from the criminal court, all for something he had no part of, nor was he even in the fucking country when the incident happened.
This was actually a recent case covered on youtube where an auditor who was merely observing the trial was called to testify and refused to do so until he spoke with his lawyer. The judge went off the rails and retaliated.
Doesn't make sense. All witnesses need to be listed in the beginning of the trial. You cannot call a surprise witness. So he must have known he would be called. So his excuse to need a lawyer wasn't valid.
@@scrumbles it's a true story and was covered on many auditing channels. The judge actually told the guy to get on the stand and the guy wanted to speak with a lawyer. He was held in contempt.
@mikezupancic2182 That's just ridiculously illegal on so many levels. It's so frustrating. On top of that, it's almost impossible to sue a judge, so he isn't likely to find restitution. The best he can hope for is a reprimand or getting him off the bench if he's lucky.
Steve, explain the word “Subpoena”, which is from the Latin “sub” meaning “under” AND “poena”, meaning “pain”, a subpoena is a threat, if you don’t “answer” the Summons in the Subpoena, you may suffer pain.
I was representing a man in an age discrimination suit against a bank. My client had been told by his boss years before that the bank had a policy of pushing out executives that reached the age of 50. When my client turned 50, he was fired. There was a witness to that conversation who still worked at the bank. I called the witness to discuss scheduling a deposition and he told me that the conversation had happened just as my client had told me, but that he would not testify. I told him I could subpoena him and he told me flat out he would lie if I did that. I told him that would be a crime and he laughed. This occured less than a year after Bill Clinton had been impeached for lying under oath and the man told me that if the president could lie, so could he.
Tell him you were recording the conversation and that you're both in a one-party consent to record state. Also, if Bill Clinton can be caught in a lie, so can he.
@@digitalcurrents You may laugh when I tell you this, but under the rules of professional responsibility, lawyers are never allowed to lie. That is actually a problem for sports agents that are also lawyers and the custom is that while functioning as agents they are not lawyers. But I was just a lawyer and unwilling to violate that canon. Not that claiming I had recorded the call occured to me at the time. But that experience is one of the reasons I believed Bill Clinton should have been convicted by the Senate.
@@mikemcmike1256 what the folks seem to think was a lie by Bill Clinton was his statement that "I did not have sex with that woman." Actually, that statement is literally true. Apparently Clinton never had actual coitus with "that woman." What the public calls "oral sex" is not actually sex. It is a form of massage, crafted orally. But since there cannot possibly be any procreation resulting, it is definitionally not "sex." Sex, or coitus, has to have the components of procreation. The next claim was that Mr. Clinton lied when he stated "I did not commit adultery." That is also literally correct. Adultery can only be committed by a married woman having coitus with a man not her husband. By that definition, a Man can never commit adultery. It is a convenient definition, to be sure.
@@ianlounsbury1544 Regardless of whether Clinton's statements were literally true (my understanding was that the Judge had given a definition of sex for purposes of the question that included oral sex) most people believe that Trump lied under oath and one result of that is that at least some peolple then felt it was OK to lie under oath or that doing so was no big deal. There was clearly some dishonesty as part of that deposition because Bill Clinton had his Arkansas law license suspended beccause of it.
The investigators approach you as a possible witness and you tell them you didn't see anything. When they decide you did see something and call you as a witness anyway, you advise the court before you have to attend that you had already told the investigators you saw nothing and your story hasn't changed. Did this in '78 and got branded as a hostile witness, whatever that means. Funny thing is, I really hadn't seen anything, I was busy trying to figure something out and wasn't paying attention to anything around me as I was totally focused on the task at hand. The first I knew was when some cop came over to me, got my attention, asked what happened to which I asked what was he on about.
If the judge rules that you’re a “hostile witness,” that means the attorney who called you gets to ask leading questions. Normally only the responding attorney gets to ask leading questions.
@Mike Dalby In general, if under oath you knowingly make a false statement-including saying “I don’t know” when you do know-you can be prosecuted for that. Of course, proving that might be difficult.
@Mike Dalby By “prove” I mean arguments and facts such that the jury will conclude that “I don’t know” is a lie. If you’re caught on video convincingly telling someone you clearly saw certain events, then two weeks later telling the opposing party during a deposition, “I don’t know” then the jury might convict you on perjury charges.
@Mike Dalby I will concede that as far as “truth” goes, you may well be correct. But that’s not the context of the issues in this video. What matters concerning punishment is the jury’s verdict, not your belief of what’s true, or even what IS true. You said, “I don’t recall, by definition cannot be perjury”. Definitions in our legal system are determined by statutes, rules, courts, and-when all such fail-commonly accepted meanings. I challenge you to find the definition you want from those sources. In the scenario I hypothesized, the jury may well find the person guilty of perjury. You believing that such a verdict is wrong is not going to change the verdict or punishment.
I heard of a case years ago of an attorney involved in his own divorce case, and he refused to disclose the location of his cash he was hiding from his ex. He was in contempt of court for years but don't know if he ever gave in or settled. But, I think he held the record for the longest contempt of court jail sentence.
What is the first thing you think when someone says “trust me”? Or some variant of“I’m a good person”? Or they start a sentence with “truthfully” or a variant. That’s why I’ve thought about that question. I understand why the question is asked, it’s to set you up for perjury to deter lying.
Lawyers... try talking to a computer geek.... we'll turn "Reboot it." Into a long list of steps, "Save all your work, close all your programs, double check everything is saved, press this, type that, cross your fingers, ..., ..., ..."
If they asked me if I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, I would probably be that weirdo who says: No, I can not in good faith take that oath, knowing that some of my testimony may not be allowed, or some of my answers may be deemed non-responsive, etc, and so I may not be permitted to tell the whole truth, which is a necessary element of the truth. I may in fact be manipulated into telling a lie of omission, which is not nothing but the truth, as I may not have an opportunity to tell the whole truth on redirect. Yeah I would be that weirdo.
Exactly. I can't make a commitment to tell the "whole truth" while also being restricted to only respond to questions from the prosecution and defense, since I can't promise that they'll ask all the relevant questions to allow me to tell it.
I’m right there with you, because that’s exactly where trial manipulations have been going by prosecutors (or defense attorneys, depending on the situation). As more time goes on, these folk learn how to build better mouse traps. I’d rather not try and fight against a seasoned manipulator, and just accept my fate with a contempt of court penalty. I’ve already lost nearly everything I had a few years back when a prosecutor manipulated my words against me, so I know better now to just shut up.
I don't recall the specific case citation, but a federal court has gone as far as "do you promise not to lie" as the basis for the risk of perjury to attach to your testimony. It's pretty hard to weasel out of that one.
I've noticed that in many recent court cases, the oath is to tell the truth and nothing but the truth: they've dropped the "whole truth." That allows attorneys to ask narrow questions. I'm not sure it's an advantage.
I have never, not once, answered 'yes' to that question. I've always replied: "I affirm I will tell the truth to the best of my knowledge and ability." Then I look at the judge and ask if what I said was acceptable, and I've yet to receive a 'no' to my query. My theory on this is quite simple, it's on just about every government form in existence, and if it's good enough for government work it's good enough for court. Seriously, in the military you can't lose a single $0.30 round in the desert without filling out both loss of equipment forms and requisition forms, in triplicate; and every form you sign says: "This form is complete and true to the best of my knowledge and ability." Edit: One judge did ask me why his oath wasn't good enough, and I told him that while getting the truth was important, I was incapable of giving him the "whole truth" as his oath required. It's "an absolute no person could reasonably fulfil under the best of conditions", and that, we "each perceive the truth through various filters like pain, stress, trauma, love, happiness, and even the passage of time, because what I remember today is different than what I'll be able to remember tomorrow."
@RainahJae beautiful response! I would also argue that whole justice system makes no sense because they assume we are all beings with free will and we chose to do x crime when in fact there is no such thing as free will its just an illusion.
This is one I'll have to remember simply because of my staunch anti-theist stance. It's a statement that lets me satisfy the needs of the court while not condoning the crossing of church/state lines.
@@LuciferBalor --Swearing is not a religious or church practice. Actually it's specifically forbidden by Jesus in James 5:12 "But above all things, my brothers, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath…"
A few years ago, I won the bad jury duty lottery and ended up on a grand jury for 6 weeks. On our last day, a witness refused to testify against their buddy. His testimony would make zero difference because we had already listened to too many witnesses. The prosecutor took the fellow to the judge, and he was told to talk or sit in the county jail until he agrees to talk and they have time to reconvene us as a grand jury (he was told that would take several weeks). He decided to talk to us. I was very happy he did because I wanted to be done doing the grand jury thing. Granted it is our civic duty, but it's totally depressing hearing about the stupid people do to end up there. And to see the sketchy stuff, the prosecutors do to put the screws to someone to get them to take a plea. I felt dirty to be a part of that.
My husband served on the Grand Jury and enjoyed it! He particularly enjoyed signing the papers to arrest some people who were taking bribes to allow drug dealers to avoid being caught. If the arrest went through the original channels the people concerned would hear about it and disappear, so the investigators used the Grand Jury.
Yeah, just like fauxque5057 said, it's SO EASY to get out of jury duty. When they're asking you questions to select you for the actual jury panel, just say you hate cops, you're biased to whatever the questions are gear to. They're trying to find impartial jurors, that is their goal. Just tell them the OPPOSITE of what they're looking for & they'll thank you for your time. It only took me 3-4 hours in the court room, before they thank me for my time.
One of the grossest parts is the government making your job pay you rather than themselves paying you. And oh but sucks more if you're self employed they tell you to pay yourself. Uh excuse you but the job makes no money if I don't work so... who will make up for the government dragging me into this and making me lose income? Never the government.
I think that trials should be limited to one week only. Two days for each side and half a day to sum up things. If there is not evidence for a short trial it should not be started.
I would say, I will testify as truthfully as to my existing recollection and belief of that truth at this time. I will never give them an unequivocal yes. If asked why, I would say that memory is proven to be a unreliable thing, and my belief of what the truth is may be wrong, and I may later find that my recollection or belief has changed. I am human. This way I avoid "perjury" should my recollection be off or wrong.
Years ago I was a sergeant with a local sheriff’s department. I served a subpoena on a doctor who told me she would not attend the proceedings. I informed her that if she didn’t attend as ordered, she would be in contempt, she shrugged as a reply. I filed a report on what she had said and went home at the end of the shift. The next morning I was ordered to report to court. The judge asked what happened and I told him. His next words will always be with me, “Sergeant Miller, if she doesn’t appear at 9 as ordered, I’ll issue an arrest warrant and you need to go arrest her, I don’t care if she is working the ER or not.” Stuck between a judge and an ER doctor that could potentially save my life was not a good place. I was relieved when she walked in as the warrant was handed to the judge to be signed.
@Jeff Miller the issue we have as a society, is that over time people allowed the government to have way too much power / authority. No government should have an authority to make people say or do things they chose not to.
@@cmsjr123 this reminds me of the incident with the nurse that was arrested for not complying with lawful orders and was subsequently arrested. She should be very rich by now since the cops got in trouble for their actions.
@@tomjohnson3610 you mean “unlawful” orders if you refer to this 2017 case “Utah nurse who was forcibly arrested when she refused to let an officer draw blood from an unconscious patient has reached a settlement worth half a million dollars.” When ignorant thugs get hired to wear a badge it’s the taxpayers who have to pay for the mess they make.
@@tomjohnson3610 If we're referring to the same video, the nurse refused to follow an Unlawful order that she was legally obligated Not to follow. The cop that, as usual, did not know the law, got all upset and arrested her.
I lost a civil case for my employer once by telling the complete truth. My employer hated courts so much he refused to enter them unless he was taken in under arrest. So he sent me to represent him in a collections case on a contract for work he did. Before going, I read the contract and the bid information, and knew that the homeowner was going to win because my employer SUCKED at writing a contract. - The judge asked me two questions that sank my employer's claims. "Does the contract state what the homeowner is claiming?" - Me: "The contract could be read that way." "Have you ever been to the job site?" - Me: "No, my boss sent me because he didn't want to be here." "Everything I am seeing would have me find for the homeowner." - Me: Makes sense, your honor." - I was never sent to court for my employer again, which was a win for me.
"No, my boss sent me because he didn't want to be here." A simple "No" would have sufficed. Never give MORE information than what is requested unless it is beneficial to your side.
@@maxwellsilver3115 arguably getting out of having to be the scapegoat for your boss in future legal issues is a win for his side. Just his side does not necessarily include his boss' best interests.
@@maxwellsilver3115 Honestly, getting out of the whole process and NEVER being asked to fill in for my boss at court WAS beneficial to my side. Not to my boss's side, but heck, he could have dragged himself in if he really wanted to win.
Our subpoenas say “ You are commanded to appear, answer truthfully any all questions as may be propounded , and therefore remain until such time as you are released” or some variation of that verbiage. Also people lie to the “police” all the time and there is no statute about that in Texas. If you however, lie on a statement or falsify an affidavit in some way, then you can be charged with perjury.
In 1992 I was in the Navy and received an order to appear. I took it to the Command Master Chief and he said I couldn’t go because the ship would be underway. I was to leave it to him. About two hours later he came up to me and said that I would be on TAD for the period the ship was to be underway and I would appear per the letter. 5 witnesses were there and the defendant changed his plea to guilty after his attorney “talked” with him.
When in court, with his hand placed on the bible, my good friend was asked "do you swear to to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?" To which Robert replied "I will tell you what I know but I do not know the whole truth, lest it would be my name in this book rather than my hand upon it"
In general the judge would happily explain the sense of tbe phrase 'the whole truth' that the court was using, that it differed from yours, and invite you to try again. Or unhappily. YMMV. What was your friend's mileage?
I did, kind of, ignore a subpoena in a civil trial once. I was working at a company and the company was subpoenaed to testify in a lawsuit between two other companies. I was unaware of the lawsuit until what I am about to describe happened. On Thursday night after I went home, I got a voicemail message from the corporate General Counsel to show up at 8AM on Friday in a city about 50 miles from work and testify in a lawsuit. That was all the information I was given. I didn't even get the voicemail until after the deposition should have started. I didn't even realize that when I got a panicked phone from the GC asking me why I was not at the deposition. At that point, I asked "What deposition?" She got really angry and went off to arrange a phone deposition, which suited me better anyway. I still had no idea of who was suing whom and what was the purpose of the lawsuit. I figured all that out from the questions asked in the deposition. Now all of this led me to understand what happened and why I was contacted at the last minute. There was another person who was senior to me and longer term with the company originally supposed to testify on behalf of my employer. I have no idea why, but he suggested that I testify in his stead. So, all of this was a reaction to this change at the last minute. It all worked out and at some point the lawsuit got settled. I was never called to testify at a trial in this case. I was highly miffed at the whole situation.
@@dmitripogosian5084 I knew (and still know) the caller - she was our corporate General Counsel. She told me who it was when she left her vm. So, I knew it was not spam.
You didn’t ignore the SUBPOENA. Under law, you do not have to obey a subpoena until it is “personally” served on you. Leaving you a voicemail does not do that. For you to be found in contempt of court, someone must have personally handed you the piece of paper (or dropped it at your feet), or you have acknowledged receipt of it somehow, such as you saying you received it or you signing a return receipt. Your GC screwed that up. She should have had someone repeatedly call you until you picked up, or had someone driver over to your house.
@@davidforthoffer9180 Note, that is why I said "sort of" in my comment. You are completely correct, which is why I wasn't fired. Because if this was properly arranged and I didn't show up, then that would have been problematic. And she didn't call my house, she left the vm on my work phone. To be fair to her, my employer was just coming out of being a startup and so having people work to very late hours was not abnormal. In fact, I was in the facility - just didn't pick up my voicemail that evening. Which is also why I didn't get to the office until after the deposition was supposed to start. I left the office at 1AM. And I would never have personally been found in contempt, my employer might have been. I was not the subject of the subpoena - my employer was (as I said in my original post).
I see a distinction between appearing as ordered and swearing to tell the truth. It seems like the court not only aims to make you appear, but they aim to force you to say certain words. If the only acceptable answer is "yes" then the question needn't be asked. If the only acceptable answer is "yes" and you'll be punished for refusing to say the word, then they may as well write the words of testimony they are forcing you to say.
Steve, The court makes you swear to tell the truth, the WHOLE truth and nothing but the truth. So my question is...why then is an attorney or judge allowed to interrupt me when asking me to testify? For instance, if I am in the middle of telling the WHOLE truth, they might interrupt and say, "that's enough"...but if I only told HALF of the truth and not the WHOLE truth because I was cut off, isn't the court now FORCING me to commit perjury? How is this action fair and legal when it seemingly causes the words of my swearing in to be moot?
Because you're just there as a witness to provide evidence. If there's more to it, the defense/prosecution has the opportunity to cross examine you to elicit whatever testimony they need out of you. Basically the attitude is that its the prosecution/defense's job to get the evidence out, not you. Now, if you're a defendant that's a different story. Long story short you can basically say anything you want as a defendant as long as you don't commit perjury
@@taoliu3949 Yes, I see your point and agree with you that that _is_ the process. However, if we are being _completely_ honest about it, the prosecution is not interested in "the *truth",* nor is the defense. They are both only interested in _winning._ Obviously, I mean this in a general sense as it is not possible for me to make such a statement about _every_ case. Indeed, there may be instances where _the_ truth is what _everyone_ is pursuing, and not just winning. So, what I am saying is that *"I"...* _not_ the prosecutor... _not_ the defense attorney... *"I"* am the one who is _swearing_ to tell the truth, the *_WHOLE_* truth, and *_NOTHING_* but the truth. They are not asking me to swear to tell the truth, the *_PORTION_* of the truth that the prosecutor wishes to cherry pick...or the *_PORTION_* of the truth that the defenses wishes to cherry pick. Therefore, as it applies to the verbiage of the swearing in, in all honesty ( _no pun intended_ ), I find the process to be rather disingenuous as it is rather obvious that the person being sworn in does not possess the liberty to tell "the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" as that liberty has been reserved for the court to decide.
@@mbgrafix "The whole truth" as in you are not purposely omitting stuff from your testimony. That said, lawyers interrupting witnesses doesn't tend to do well for them in general. It just gives the otherside an additional question for them to ask when they cross examine the witness and gives the Jury the impression you were trying to mislead them. Ultimately it doesn't really work out well for the prosecution.
I think it's a safe bet if the attorney feels something about you telling the whole truth isn't going to be in their favor they will interrupt. I remember a case where this happened several times as a defense attorney was questioning a witness. The witness had enough of it and said "You're honor I swore to tell the whole truth. If I'm not going to be allowed to do so for any questions he asks may I be excused?" Before the judge could answer the defense attorney said "I have no further questions for this witness." That was followed by the prosecution asking follow ups to each of the questions, the defense objecting and being overruled since they had brought the subjects up and it becoming very obvious why they had tried preventing the whole truth to be told. It's like if you're on trial for indecent exposure and a witness is asked if they saw you exposed in front of a daycare center. The witness says "Yes" then is stopped before they can finish saying "Yes, two dogs violently attacked him as he was jogging by on the sidewalk two hours before the daycare opened and partially ripped his clothes off. As he was getting up off the ground he was briefly exposed before gathering his shredded clothes around himself." Yes is indeed the truth, but leaves quite a different impression than the whole truth.
Before I took the stand, the prosecutor went through a list of things I was not allowed to mention in front of the jury (things that would've been helpful to my defense of course). Then the swore me in before the jury about telling the whole truth, but it was a lie because I was barred from telling the whole truth. What would've happened if I told the court in front of the jury, "I'd like to tell the whole truth, but that man (prosecutor) won't let me" ??
The judge would have taken your rights away, told a cop to kidnap you(and they would), and thrown you in a cell and tortured you with unclean and unsafe conditions meant to barely suffice to let you live physically and not at all in any other way. That's what happens in a communist police state.
@Grace Jackson Another technique witnesses often use is that if you can't answer a question with a simple yes or no, then you answer the opposite of what the lawyer is expecting. For instance, if the question has an answer of yes under certain qualifying conditions that completely change the perception and/or context of whatever is being discussed...then just say no. Or vice-versa. This will immediately put the lawyer in defense mode. He will then attempt to claim perjury, which you can say right back...he asked for a yes or no response, and under those conditions the answer is no. If he allows for a proper answer with full context it will not be a simple yes or no. Again...if you tick off the judge they are libel to treat you like a scumbag without any constitutional protections. Up to, and including, sentencing you to death even if it's "unintentional." Judges are evil hateful beings that have far too much power and routinely view the world through warped lenses. They do not ever understand how someone can't afford to take off a day to go to court. Because they've never lived paycheck to paycheck and have never looked at the price of milk unless it was to give false equivalency for how they can relate to someone. You are automatically considered beneath them, and they will do anything they want to ensure you know this.
Follow up question: Having taken the oath under threat of imprisonment. Are you then actually required to tell the truth, as any contract made under duress is invalid?
"I don't recall." "I can't recall." "I can't remember. " "I don't remember. " It is a demand to appear. Any contempt ruling against brain memory is bullshit.
Well, if you were charged with perjury, the jury would be responsible for deciding whether your protestations of ignorance were bogus. They could decide that it was. Best of luck to you! :)
@@trentgay3437 Yup. And one employed quite well by HR Clinton when examined about her email server, IIRC. But thank you for the gratuitous injection of partisan politics into a non-partisan discussion! Cheers! :)
Even if someone can be compelled to testify, I imagine it's a tough decision to decide if you should compel them. I was a member of a jury on a murder trial and that was the problem with one of the prosecution's main witnesses: she did not want to testify. Because I was on the jury, I'm not sure of the exact objections and lawyering that went on outside of the jury's presence, but I do know the witness did not show up when first expected and the following day, the jury was sent on break while they tracked this witness down and brought her in. By that point, once the person was on the stand, the prosecutor had to acknowledge the situation and as one of the first questions, asked the person if they wanted to be there, and the answer was a resounding 'no'. The prosecutor then asked if they were going to tell the truth even if they weren't happy about it. The witnesses responded that she would; however, the testimony was so hostile and sketchy in places, us jury members did not give a lot of weight to the witness and mostly decided based on other evidence (and ultimately decided 'not guilty'). In short: having a hostile witness can hurt you more than it can help.
What about violating your freedom of religion? In the Bible in the book of James Chapter 5:12 "But above all, my fellow believers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath;" If the Government requires me to take an oath isn't that prohibiting me from the free exercise of my faith? What if I state that I promise to tell the truth, but I will not take an oath?
I once refused to take an oath or affirmation to tell the truth at an informal hearing for a parking ticket. Magistrate was livid, but continued with the hearing.
So I served on a jury a few years back where a witness was called to the stand, the court room assistant tried to swear him in, and the witness said "no". The judge then excused the jury and sent us back to the break room. When we returned we were told that the judge had spoken to the witness and he was now sworn in. After the trial he said that in his 30-odd years of being a judge, he'd never seen that before either.😂
Likely, he asked: "Do you know the difference between the truth and a lie?" and "Do you know what's real versus make pretend?" That's what they ask kids, to assess reliability. HERE ARE MY ANSWERS: Well only Gahd knows what's the truth. ...I suppose epistemologically speaking, some people rely on JTB, justified true beliefs, others rely on General Scepticism, and some people think they always have the only truth... Let me consult for a moment Your Honor, now would you like to consult with my self-identity named Jerry, or do you prefer Mary, or my self-identified "canine-kin" sexual identity, namely Rover The Mutt, because he's the one who knows WAY more than Jerry or Mary, but I'm very cooperative and you just let me know which of my consciousnesses or self-identities you'd prefer. ...Or if you prefer that I channel the identity of The Lord Jesus Christ, then we'll get the WHOLE truth, because like I said -- only GAHD knows what's true!
@@highpath4776 Well, in our case we were instructed to believe the judge. But the lawyers didn't object, and it was clear that the witness had been rehabilitated and was answering questions posed to him by the laywers.
If I said no and the judge asked me why I said no, I'd say: "I cannot predict whether or not the lawyers will allow me to tell the 'whole truth', in fact, I highly suspect they may request that I only answer yes or no to their questions and they will not ask all the questions necessary to provide the court with a whole account of the truth. If we can agree to strike 'the whole truth' from the the oath I will say yes. If this is not removed from my oath, it's my belief that saying yes is a lie in and of itself."
Sometimes they tell you all of the things you're not allowed to mention in front of the jury, but then tell you to swear in front of the jury to tell the whole truth. It's such a rigged system.
I wonder what would happen if when the lawyers play their usual game of using careful yes/no questions to avoid letting you tell the truth, you were to say to the judge, "Your honor continuing to answer only carefully selected yes/no questions will place me in violation of my oath to tell "the whole truth"?
@@Chris-yd4kg Things like "You can't call those deaths murders." or "Your secret plea deal means you can't name the big criminal at the top of the organization because we're busy trying to turn him to a double agent for the FBI."
I thought the constitution says that the state is unable to force you to say specific things. So forcing you to swear an oath would violate your constitutional rights?
Seems like the easiest way around the actually question of whether or not you'll tell the truth during your testimony is simply to not ask and have a court instruction upon taking the stand that the witness is expected to tell the truth to the best of their ability under the threat of perjury if they knowingly do otherwise. If the court doesn't give the option, it avoids dealing with pedantry either conscientious or smart-assed.
20+ years ago I was called to give a deposition and later testify in a federal trial, the plaintiffs 3 attorneys where complete idiots. During the deposition I was threatened twice, later I received 9 subpoenas from the 3 attorneys with my name miss spelled, the process server refused to give me the information to confirm they where true federal subpoenas. The defense later served me a subpoena with everything correct. I appeared in the federal court when sworn in I said no, the judge asked my why I explained that due to distrust in the three attorneys and their incompetent handling of my subpoenas and their treats I could not trust them not to charge me with prudery, or bring other legal action, no matter how truthful I was as a result I would not swear or attest. I stated that I would answer the questions to the best of my ability and it would be up to the jury to decide if it was accurate. The judge asked for the Subpoenas after looking at them he told the 3 that it would be a late night in his office. Told me he understood and to take the stand, answered the questions and was dismissed. Later heard the 3 had several bad days in chambers. I respected this Judge for doing the right thing.
"...plaintiff(')s 3 attorneys w(h)[not needed]ere complete idiots." And, you "arnt"? Really "aren't." ""Were." "Plaintiff's." "Misspelled." (Yes, it really IS a single word. Have someone look it, and everything else, up for you.) On the other hand, you just might be guilty of "prudery." (The act of being a prude.) "Perjury" maybe? Please step back from the keyboard. The damage you do, will be to you. (Should have edited again, after letting your only friend re-read your post.) steve
In case you are being not merely being disingenuous, I suspect that autocorrect converted a mistaken spelling of 'perjury' to 'prudery'. But I'm just some random shlub, so what do I know?
I did see this happen. I was in an Ohio Mayor's court and I had accused my neighbor of litter/dog running loose issues. When we got to the court and he was asked "Do you swear..." he said, "No." Just as you said, the mayor said, "No?" and he repeated no. The village solicitor and the mayor got together and whispered a bit and in the end just let him testify anyway. He lied. No surprises there. Then I testified and he was found guilty. End result he made the front page of the local newspaper. I'll see if I can find the clipping. If I can I'll scan it and send it to you.
If you sign a contract or citation with your name followed by "U.D.", it indicates "Under Duress". What are the implications and results of invalidating that signature? And ... is there a verbal version of this, where you swear in court to tell the truth but "Under Duress", compelled by force or threats and therefore invalidated? 🤟
if you're forced by the threat of contempt of court to show up, and compelled by the judge to say yes bc its the only possible "correct" answer, then its merely a "you will comply" formality and entirely pointless bc you cannot refuse; wouldn't this mean the oath is done under Duress without your consent? it seems like you could then argue "i never consented to be here in the first place, to take the oath nor to speak truthfully"
Hey Steve, I’ve had this question for a while now: Do you legally need to be accessible by the USPS? You talk a lot about summons and notices, but is there a law that I need to have a mailbox that I regularly check?
Also to “serve” someone it is a person to person physically hand them the summons, notice, subpoena, so when asked in court did you serve the person they have a human who can say yes I physically handed the person the “item”. So having a mailbox won’t matter.
With regards to "affirming" vs "swearing", I recall a judge (in Idaho, if I recall correctly) who declared a law he sponsored as a legislator, because somehow the law required a witness to swear without the option to affirm. The judge essentially said, "This law was supposed to protect people like you [the defendant wanting to affirm], but it fails to do that, so I'm declaring my own law unConstitutional!".
When I heard the question, I had a different take on it. I heard, "When you're asked to tell the truth, as in, do you swear to tell the truth, can you say no, as in, no I will not swear to tell the truth.". Now I'm wondering what would happen if you refused to swear to be honest when testifying?
Steve, an interesting story my grandmother told me years ago. You have heard the saying "I have slept since then". Mema said it came from a trial where one man refused to testify by answering "I don't remember, I've slept since then". When asked to explain himself he said that he starts every day fresh and puts the past behind him to the point he doesn't keep details in his memory. After much to do... they had to let his testimony stand. I have slept since then. According to my grandmother this was a true story.
What if your memory is imperfect -- you remember something now a little differently than you remembered it two years ago at the deposition. And if you give answers that are even slightly incongruent with one another, and if the prosecutor is feeling vindictive, you could then be charged with perjury. And this has happened.
I remember a trial in Canada where a witness (who was already serving a lengthy sentence) was called to testify and when he was asked to swear to tell the truth he simply said “no”. It pretty much ended the trial and there wasn’t anything they could do to him because he was already in jail and his testimony or lack of it wasn’t going to change that. There was some wailing and gnashing of teeth on the part of the prosecution but that was all.
Lol I'm Canadian and it was not a simple no. He said no as it might incriminate himself. Contempt isn't much of a sentence here or there. He also did not say no but said I refuse to testify. Lie about nothing happened to him. He later got a year added on plus a 10k the for which while in prison here gets your prison funds seized and canteen denied.
@@terryarmbruster9719 There is no analog to the fifth amendment of the US constitution in Canada. In Canada you do not have the right to remain silent on the grounds that it may incriminate you. Canada courts can lawfully compel truthful testimony, and refusal to provide it upon request can be treated contempt.
@@markt1964 You're correct. But the Canada Evidence Act provides that your testimony can't be used against you in other proceedings: 5 (1) No witness shall be excused from answering any question on the ground that the answer to the question may tend to criminate him, or may tend to establish his liability to a civil proceeding at the instance of the Crown or of any person. (2) Where with respect to any question a witness objects to answer on the ground that his answer may tend to criminate him, or may tend to establish his liability to a civil proceeding at the instance of the Crown or of any person, and if but for this Act, or the Act of any provincial legislature, the witness would therefore have been excused from answering the question, then although the witness is by reason of this Act or the provincial Act compelled to answer, the answer so given shall not be used or admissible in evidence against him in any criminal trial or other criminal proceeding against him thereafter taking place, other than a prosecution for perjury in the giving of that evidence or for the giving of contradictory evidence.
@@aoeulhs All Canadian laws are irrelevant. As was shown during the anti-vax protests, the Canadian government will overstep its authority and break any laws necessary to achieve whatever goals the government wants. Therefore, the Canada Evidence Act is not something that can be trusted.
How and when did a court acquire personal jurisdiction over witness who is not a party to a case? And has anyone ever challenged the court's alleged personal jurisdiction over a witness?
Refusing to recite the magical oath spell incantation is NOT the same as refusing to testify. Indeed, I can think of no more honest an answer than "no, I do not swear to tell the truth."
What happens if I refuse to swear due to religion? Matthew 5:34-37 But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black.
