ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted April 3, 2013 Share Posted April 3, 2013 Well here are the "Rules" around witness testimony in CT and I believe they're nearly identical in NY (I'm licensed in both locations and North Carolina). I think it's like 2-2.4 but not sure: 1) was the witness able to see, or hear, or know the things about which that witness testified? 2) how well was the witness able to recall and describe those things? 3) what was the witness's manner while testifying? 4) did the witness have an interest in the outcome of this case or any bias or prejudice concerning any party or any matter involved in the case? 5) how reasonable was the witness's testimony considered in light of all the evidence in the case? and 6) was the witness's testimony contradicted by what that witness has said or done at another time, or by the testimony of other witnesses, or by other evidence? And here I was under the impression that: Credibility is assessed based on multiple factors, including but not limited to status as a defendant. When a non-defendant witness testifies, the credibility of that witness is likewise assessed based on multiple factors. Shame on me. Thanks for setting me straight. If the law really required a jury to always find an accused defendant to be the least credible witness in a criminal trial, under all circumstances, and no matter what the result of other factors that affect credibility, wouldn't you expect to find a pattern (i.e., standardized) jury instruction that told them so? Or is there some reason why trial judges in Florida, New York, Connecticut and North Carolina are all deliberately failing to give juries a standardized instruction that you have decided would be appropriate? "Aviator Crew we're fliest round here..." Apparently you speak pigeon English as well as French - - big deal. My second cousin Darryl on my momma's side says tell Tyga to take his T-rawws someplace else. Rollus Tideus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts