Lying under oath

[mjr]

Here's one I was just thinking about.

With some high-profile court cases, and some people threatening to go to court, I started thinking about this.

If someone who is testifying in a court case is supposed to be doing so "under oath" (i.e. you're supposed to tell the truth), then why are there so many different "stories" told? And it usually comes out to "what's more believable". So a person (or group of people) could lie their ass off, and as long as it's "believable" and you can't prove they're lying, you can get away with it? That doesn't sound right.

I mean, I can understand if you interview 5 or 6 witnesses that don't know each other and get bits and pieces from each one, but they generally give you the same information -- that some event happened. There is still a possibility of lying, but I think in a case where the witnesses don't know each other, it's reduced.

But let's take something relatively non-controversial to explain my point. Let's use the "deflated football scandal" in the NFL right now.

Let's say that actually DID go to court.

So you'll have Robert Kraft, Tom Brady, the two equipment guys, and Bill Belichick all testifying.

So now, they're all on a "united" front. And they're all testifying under oath...

Belichick: "I didn't know what was going on."
Brady: "I like the footballs to feel a certain way. I didn't know they were underinflated."
Equipment Guys "Ha, ha, ha...deflator is a term we use for weight loss..."
Kraft: "We do our best to play within the rules".

Now, it doesn't matter, at this point, if they're all telling the truth or all lying.

And let's say (for argument's sake) that they're all lying. There's no proof that they're lying, so technically, they're getting away with it (the act of lying under oath).

I'm not saying they are or aren't. I'm just using this as a less-controversial example to illustrate my overall question.

What say you?

[Canarr]

Well, I guess one thing is actually the unreliable nature of witness statements.

There was a traffic accident in my area, maybe two years ago, to which the police was called: two cars had collided on an open road between towns, at night. The drivers were lightly injured and somewhat dazed; not unusual for traffic accidents.

The cops took their statements, tried to work out what had happened, and examined the cars. They discovered that one of the cars had some fresh damage that couldn't possibly have originated from the second car (different color).

Further investigation turned up: there had been a third car involved in the accident, coming out of a side road. The third driver - whether intentionally, or from shock - had left the scene without stopping. The strange part was that neither of the other drivers had registered that there was a third vehicle involved in their accident. They both told the cops what they believed was right.

As to the question about intentional perjury: that's kind of the job that law enforcement has to do, isn't it? Find out who committed which crime, and see to it that they're punished according to the law.

[lordlundar]

To quote from an old TV show:

The truth? This is a court of law. This is not a place for truth, this is a place for lies. Everybody who comes here lies. The plaintiffs lie, the defendants lie, the lawyers lie, the cops lie, EVERYBODY lies. And you expect me to sift through all of that and extract the TRUTH? From all that rubble? And that what's we call justice.

Basically anyone who comes up to the stand has an incentive to tell their slant of the story to win because the penalty for a loss is big. The plaintiff loses and there's a potentially dangerous person on the street, the defendant loses and it means a potentially ruined life. On either side a loss for the lawyer means a loss of reputation. For the officers a loss means a loss of face in the community. So while it's expected that not everyone is outright lying, it's also expected that the truth is not entirely there either.

Understanding is a three edged sword; your side, their side, and the truth.

[TheHuckster]

But let's take something relatively non-controversial to explain my point. Let's use the "deflated football scandal" in the NFL right now.

If this were a sports forum, they'd laugh at you for calling this a non-controversial situation. This is their version of the Bay of Pigs.

But, in your example, you're only looking at the accused party as witnesses, which would never happen in a court of law. If the deflate-gate thing happened in a court of law, the prosecution would choose the following people as witnesses:

The Colts player who intercepted the football and reported it to the officials.

The officials who were present at the game and measured the footballs.

Expert witness testimony who would support or oppose the possibility that weather and temperature played a factor in the deflating of the balls (which is a possibility for all but one of the balls; that one ball being the one that was intercepted by the Colts player and brought to the officials)

Now, the jury has to figure the following realistic expectations:

The Patriots are in it for themselves, and will paint the picture as beneficial to themselves as possible.

The Colts are in it for themselves, and will paint the picture as detrimental to the Patriots as possible.

The officials will choose a story that doesn't make them look like idiots who couldn't keep track of 12 footballs during a high-profile, important playoff game.

The expert witness is probably the only unbiased, reasonably balanced witness.

The punchline here is everyone here might be lying, and the truth is some completely disparate story altogether. For instance: Perhaps the Patriots did really threaded the needle in getting the balls as close to 12.5 and the equipment staff said "screw this" and intentionally deflated them to 12.4, thinking nobody would notice. Meanwhile the Colts player who intercepted intentionally deflated the ball on the sideline before reporting it to the referee... and the referee testified there was a rogue referee who was responsible for the balls but placed a bet in favor of the Patriots, overseeing the pressure of the balls, relieving the other refs of incompetence while throwing another possibly innocent ref under the bus (but he deserved it, surmised the lying ref, because he didn't pitch in enough money for that dinner they had the other night).

Or, as lordlunar says, "your side, their side, the truth"

[Shangri-laschild]

And it usually comes out to "what's more believable". So a person (or group of people) could lie their ass off, and as long as it's "believable" and you can't prove they're lying, you can get away with it? That doesn't sound right.

It's the same as any other crime. You have to be able to prove they committed a crime. And it is harder to prove because like other people said, just because someone tells you what they saw and what they saw didn't happen, doesn't mean that they were lying. Does it suck when people get away with blatant perjury? Yeah, but then again it's not much different than people getting away with other crimes.

[TheHuckster]

It's the same as any other crime. You have to be able to prove they committed a crime. And it is harder to prove because like other people said, just because someone tells you what they saw and what they saw didn't happen, doesn't mean that they were lying.

It doesn't even have to be blatant lying. The trial often happens months after the event, and people's memory of what happened are going to be vague in some parts. Especially if an idea is injected into them from other witnesses or lawyers.

[Anthony K. S.]

To quote from an old TV show:

The truth? This is a court of law. This is not a place for truth, this is a place for lies. Everybody who comes here lies. The plaintiffs lie, the defendants lie, the lawyers lie, the cops lie, EVERYBODY lies. And you expect me to sift through all of that and extract the TRUTH? From all that rubble? And that what's we call justice.

Night Court.

A "crazy" substitute judge turned Harry's courtroom upside down ... Well, more upside down than it normally was.

It turned out, the poor man was having a nervous breakdown after dealing with the horrors of the judicial system for twenty-five years.

At the end, he seemed to become clear-headed again, and whispered "My God, what have I done?" (in reference to his bizarre behavior in court), as Harry sought to get him help.

It doesn't even have to be blatant lying. The trial often happens months after the event, and people's memory of what happened are going to be vague in some parts. Especially if an idea is injected into them from other witnesses or lawyers.

This is why prosecutors who are appearing before a grand jury are usually advised to keep their witnesses' testimony as short as possible. People's memories change over time, and the less that a witness says during the grand jury, the harder it will be for a defense lawyer to impeach the witness's testimony later.

Unfortunately, it is all too easy for a lawyer to get a jury to fall for a cheap shot like :

"Excuse me, but isn't it true that when you testified before the grand jury, you said that you were in the building for five minutes, but now you are saying that you left the building half an hour later?"

For the record, prosecutors do this, too.

[lordlundar]

Night Court.

A "crazy" substitute judge turned Harry's courtroom upside down ... Well, more upside down than it normally was.

It turned out, the poor man was having a nervous breakdown after dealing with the horrors of the judicial system for twenty-five years.

At the end, he seemed to become clear-headed again, and whispered "My God, what have I done?" (in reference to his bizarre behavior in court), as Harry sought to get him help.

Got it in one. I wasn't sure if someone would get the reference. I found the part I quoted to be a pretty noted point of lucidity for the judge about how the courts work.

[Aragarthiel]

Well, I guess one thing is actually the unreliable nature of witness statements.

/snip

They both told the cops what they believed was right.

This makes a very good point. If you believe something is true, and there is no physical evidence that it absolutely is or isn't, there's no way to prove what the truth is. So when court cases turn into he-said-she-said, there's no foolproof way to determine if someone is lying. The court goes by who seems most trustworthy, even though that might not be correct.

It's almost exactly the same as when you're accused of something as a kid and no matter how much you try to explain it, your parents don't believe that you didn't do it, and you get in trouble. The only real difference is that parents aren't police and don't take things like fingerprints into account. I once got grounded for eating an entire container of peanuts that I had watched my little sister eat. I had had a single handful, but because my aunt and uncle (who we were living with at the time) didn't see her with a handful of peanuts and they did with me, I got grounded for a month. They thought she was more trustworthy because she was the quiet, shy one, so there was nothing I could do. That doesn't make the truth any less true, though.

[Andrew B]

There is also a reason that both sides keep the witnesses separated, and isolated from the trial until they testify, only allowing them to watch the trial if they are done with the witness.

[Andara Bledin]

People's memories change over time, and the less that a witness says during the grand jury, the harder it will be for a defense lawyer to impeach the witness's testimony later.

Not only do your memories change over time, but the more you think about a memory, the more likely it is that it will change.

And, to put the cherry on top of it, we don't actually see everything we think we see. Not only don't our eyes have the capability of actually seeing every bit that there wherever they're pointed, but somewhere between light hitting the eyes an the info hitting your brain, there's a filter that makes everything look smooth and 'correct.' That filter is why optical illusions can be so tricky.

[Panacea]

Understanding is a three edged sword; your side, their side, and the truth.

I said that to an attorney I know, once. He laughed and said, "No. It's your side, their side, and what I can prove."

Mjr: The problem with perjury is it must be deliberate and what often happens is people testify to their perceptions. Their perceptions to them are often the truth. And of course, as others have mentioned, memories can change based on what they hear from other people, which is as someone pointed out, why witnesses are kept apart from other witnesses.

But even deliberate perjury is hard to prove, so unless it's really blatant or central to the case, prosecutors often don't bother charging a liar. They just rely on destroying the lie in court.

This is why courts allow expert witnesses, who can often cut through competing testimony from private citizens who witness something and clarify the situation for the jury (or muddle it more).

Unfortunately, it is all too easy for a lawyer to get a jury to fall for a cheap shot like :

"Excuse me, but isn't it true that when you testified before the grand jury, you said that you were in the building for five minutes, but now you are saying that you left the building half an hour later?"

For the record, prosecutors do this, too.

And civil attorneys. In both civil and criminal cases, especially complicated ones, witnesses (not the person charged) will often be deposed. Lawyers do this to see what the person is going to testify to in the actual trial, because no lawyer asks a question he doesn't already know the answer to. This is especially important for the expert witness, so the opposing counsel knows what is going to be testified to.

Ugh. I have a deposition next week. The lawyer will ask me about my background and training, then will ask questions about nursing care. I can only testify as to what the nurse did, not what the physician did. And I have to keep my answers short because long answers open doors for opposing counsel to try and twist what I'm really trying to say (I learned this lesson the hard way in my last depo).

[Andara Bledin]

Ugh. I have a deposition next week. The lawyer will ask me about my background and training, then will ask questions about nursing care. I can only testify as to what the nurse did, not what the physician did. And I have to keep my answers short because long answers open doors for opposing counsel to try and twist what I'm really trying to say (I learned this lesson the hard way in my last depo).

I think an early episode of Bones covered this sort of thing, actually.

The entire court process is a fascinating socio-political construct.

[wolfie]

Lawyers do this to see what the person is going to testify to in the actual trial, because no competent lawyer asks a question he doesn't already know the answer to.

Fixed that for you. There are various humour items circulating on the web about lawyers blowing a case that seems to be wrapped up by asking a question they don't know the answer to. For example: Impaired driving case. Arresting officer didn't use (because they didn't have) a breathalyzer. Defense attorney has established that the officer is a rookie, and hadn't gone through the department's training on how to evaluate intoxication. Lawyer asks (what he thinks is a) rhetorical question "And given this, why do you think you're qualified to judge whether or not my client was intoxicated?" Cop's answer? "Seven years as a bartender".

[Panacea]

Fixed that for you. There are various humour items circulating on the web about lawyers blowing a case that seems to be wrapped up by asking a question they don't know the answer to. For example: Impaired driving case. Arresting officer didn't use (because they didn't have) a breathalyzer. Defense attorney has established that the officer is a rookie, and hadn't gone through the department's training on how to evaluate intoxication. Lawyer asks (what he thinks is a) rhetorical question "And given this, why do you think you're qualified to judge whether or not my client was intoxicated?" Cop's answer? "Seven years as a bartender".

That's a good one!

I had an attorney ask me what harm an inmate had suffered in the jail.

Me: "He died."

The look on the lawyer's face was priceless.