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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
“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).
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.
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 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. :)
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.”
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
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 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
The first part, " Do you swear to tell the truth," is straightforward to answer. No problem there, but legally, the portion of "the whole truth" and " nothing but the truth" are impossibilities to perform, and you would, in truth, be perjuring yourself immediately. What is the whole truth? Do you start from the beginning of the universe and speak everything that happened throughout history? They need to define what they mean by "whole truth." Technically, the whole truth means everything. That would take a long time.
Famously in the Watergate trial, when G. Gordon Liddy was sworn in he answered "No." He said that the judge then went apoplectic and banged his gavel so many times and so hard that it broke. He was then thrown in jail for contempt of court, but he was already being held without bail awaiting his own trial, so nothing really came of it, except that it possibly was part of the judges reasoning to give him the maximum possible sentences at his trial.
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.
@@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.
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. 🤷
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
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.
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!
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."
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"?
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.
I was a PI for criminal defense attorneys and testified frequently. One time just for grins when taking the oath, I answered "yes, no, and yes." Before the judge could react, I explained that "Yes, I swear to tell the truth and yes, I swear to tell nothing but the truth. Whether or not I tell the whole truth will depend entirely on the questions those two guys ask me." "Take a seat," said the judge.
just about did same. I said depends, judge asked what did I mean, simple judge, if the question is truthfull I'll answer with the truth but you and i know that the DA and the cops will lie, lie, lie because it is all about "winning". he said, your excused.
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.
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…"
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.
I once objected to a question from the witness stand. The prosecutor asked a question that assumed guilt on my part and demanded a yes or no answer. I said your honor I object to the question on the grounds that it doesn't matter if I say yes or no then I have incriminated myself for something I didn't do and that is perjury which is a crime. The judge sustained the objection,and then went off on the defense attorney for not objecting when he should have. He threatened to hold the defense attorney in contempt if I or any other witness had to object from the stand.
Matthew 5: 33-37 & James 5: 12 I said "NO" in District Court (in the 1970's) when asked if I would swear to tell the truth, I said, "it's against my Religion". The Judge went out of the Courtroom to try and determine what to do, came back and said I could 'Affirm' to tell the truth.
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.
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.
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.
My old law teacher once took a case to the 5th circuit court of appeals (and won) with the argument: "Do you want me to tell you the truth that I have limited knowledge of the English language and often do not tell the truth - or do you want me to lie and tell you that I know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?"
I know a process server. He told me that he can be called into court to testify that a party to a legal proceeding was served court documents. He said that he has never had to, but it can happen. But there's a problem, he spends his entire day, seven days a week, knocking on doors. Sometimes people are home, sometimes they are not, but at the end of the day, he says he would have difficulty remembering the details of individual services. After a month, forget about it! So, he says, he fears getting called into court, getting to the stand, raising his hand and swearing to tell the truth, and the answer to the question "Do you recall serving documents to the defendant?" is "No." He says he has never had to go to court, but this part bothers him. I think he is OK because he is telling the truth, but it sure won't be helping the case any. Now, I assume that he could respond to the lawyer that issued the subpoena and tell them in advance, "Sorry pal, but I know that I served those documents because I completed an affidavit that says I did. But I do NOT remember any details, especially what the defendant looks like," and the lawyer will not call him in court. But I don't know how lawyers or courts work. Maybe he's OK, but maybe he's screwed?
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.
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.
(1) My late buddy was inducted during the Nam oil war. When they directed everyone to step forward, as part of the induction and to signify they agreed to serve, he didn't move, leaving him standing alone, behind everyone else. Chaos ensued. They threatened and coerced, eventually taking him to a room, where they tried to pressure him to volunteer. The stench of the rat grew to him. That they tried so hard to get him to do something, as a condition of being inducted (draft) trigger alarms. Eventually, he was sent home. (2) When I was in court to testify on a friend's behalf, the prosecutor played the "yes or no" game. I elaborated, giving my answers. After he sought to correct me, I continued to elaborate in my answers. He sought the court's assistance. I objected, pointing out I had just sworn to tell the truth, but by just saying yes or no could not answer the questions, AND by him trying to limit my answers, the prosecutor was tampering with my testimony. Comedy ensued. Interestingly, the prosecutor no longer had any questions for me and he was left with the testimony I gave for the defense.
You can say no as long as you have meds for panic attacks and tell the judge, I can't because I have panic attacks and will tell anyone anything they want to hear just to get away from them.
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."
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 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.
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.
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.
I had to testify in court as a witness to a fight that lead to some one getting stabbed in my front yard I didn't know any one that was involved two girls in their 20s attacked a young teenage girl and the girl ran to my house looking for someone one to help her I was in the house so I went out side to see what was going on and I seen two 20 year old girls beating up the teen girl the teen stabbed one of the girls and I yelled at them to get off my property and the teen girl ran up to me and asked me to help her I had to go to court to testify and every time I would tell what I seen the prosecutor would stop me and say that's hear say the teen girl was charged with stabbing her attacker I got mad because the prosecutor didn't want me to tell the truth so the next time the prosecutor tried to stop me from answering a question I told her that I didn't know that my 1st amendment ended at the steps of the court house and I told her that every thing that she was saying in court was hear say because I didn't see you there when the girl was stabbed the judge laughed and the prosecutor didn't know what to say
Get off his back! (Grammer patrol (oh God! Or is it syntact (and did I spell syntact correctly( and am I using parentheses correctly (and how deep in parentheses am I even?))))))))))) Anyways, it was a great story and it takes guts to stand up against a prostituter on the stand, bit he did it for justice. Something that's in short supply in our conviction system!
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.
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?
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, ..., ..., ..."
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).
If it is worded "do you swear ...", there is a way to say "no" but you will quickly make the correction and then "affirm" rather than "swear". Some people hold a religious belief that to "swear" is a sin. This is why there is the "do you swear or affirm" thing in some court hearings.
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.
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.
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 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! :)
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.
Back in the 1970's in District Court for the County of Walla Walla, State of Washington, I was asked to hold up my hand and asked, "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?" And I said "NO"! Then I added, "It is against my Religion to swear or take an oath". The Judge was taken by surprise, took a recess and finally came back after consulting the RCW. He said there was an alternative to those who took literally Mathew 5: 33-37 and James 5:12 in scripture. I was allowed to Affirm that I would tell the truth. I use to mark out on voting ballots 'swear' where my signature was required and write in 'affirm'. They finally after a few years got the message and printed the ballots with, 'Do swear or affirm'.
The secret is if you know a case is coming up, leave the state, or even the county without a trace so you can't be served until the case is resolved. If a proscess server can't make direct contact in person, you can't be served.
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.
This just shows it is an entrapment technique for the show. It changes from contempt of court to perjury......which one has the hire punishment? Remember, there is a treasure hunter that has been in jail for over 5 years not for what he did but because he won't answer the judges question.....
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.
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 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.
One of my friends was a rental property owner tenants boyfriend did damage to house with neighbor witnessing it. He was charged. They went to court with the neighbor as witness for my friend. He had to miss an entire day's work all because he had witnessed the damage. When I mentioned it my friend said she didn't care she got the money for the damaged door and to heck with the poor slob who lost his wages for that day simply because he did the right thing. Yea it ain't fair
It's about time those compensations for witnessing and jury duty etc are updated to current standards. 15$ for a witness is not enough. 50$ is more reasonable. But if a witness is required to be at court all day, it should be 100$
I agree. I don't think he even received $15. But what bothered me the most was my former friend's callous attitude toward the guy losing money . In my state Grand Juey is called 1 x month 12 x's a year. Pay lol is $1 or $5
In Ohio, a subpoena is compulsory process but not a court "order," which must be signed by a judge, not an attorney. "Rule 45 allows discovery to be obtained from nonparties in a manner that closely parallels Rule 34 discovery of parties. Civ.R. 45(A) and 45(D)(2) clarify that a party may use subpoenas to obtain electronically stored information from nonparties. It allows the party issuing the subpoena to specify the form or forms of production for electronically stored information while prohibiting the requesting party from demanding that the subpoenaed person provide the same information in more than one electronic format."
I saw a person in Maine that said no and the judge merely said "Well, just be sure tell me when you're lying." By the way I haven't seen a bible used for taking court oaths in many many years.
Part of why you don't see a bible is that Christians aren't supposed to swear unto God or use his name profanely. Granted that they pick and choose how to follow the bible.
judges used to carry a bible in to the court room . That's why people stood when a judge entered. For the bible. With the extreme enforcement of separation of church and state (a good thing), a judge does not carry a bible with them, and people don't swear to god. I'm still trying to figure out why I would stand for a PUBLIC SERVENT who by law doesn't represent the bible anymore...
I have testified in courts and at deposition probably the better part of a thousand times---mostly as an expert witness. It has been my observation that there are people who perjure themselves repeatedly and suffer no significant consequences. The theory, I suppose, is that the decider(s) of fact will recognize and disregard the perjured testimony, but it isn't necessarily so. BTW, I discovered that my paternal grandmother perjured herself on a form naming my father's father. That went undiscovered for about a hundred years until I figured it out and corrected it---despite the fact an accurate record was on file in the same county as the inaccurate one.
The reason is, its hard to prove it's a lie, or just a mistaken belief. They have to have evidence that you knew it was a lie when you said it and it's almost impossible to prove
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.
Авто/Мото
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.
Always an exception =D
Not having the ability to testify accurately could cause a jury to believe and/or convict an innocent person.
@Mark M Which happens every day.
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.
That is a really good point. That would be a good defense in not answering a certain question because it would not allow me to 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!
@@kitanul788
Love it.
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.
@@kravvormagagor9595 of course, but if you can thwart the narrative that the opposing council is attempting to project, all the better
JUDGE: DO YOU SWEAR.
CURLY : NO ,BUT I KNOW ALL THE WORDS.
I love Disorder In the Court, one of their best 😂
Put down that hat, raise your right hand, sointney judgey wudgey
@@letsgobrandon416right. My brother and I used to watch that over and over again when we were kids.
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.
Any rights you think you have the gooberment has a loophole that says you don't.
Balliff will do whatever there told no matter how heinous.. they would probably off someone in court if they were told to
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.
Good one.
Judge: I hold you in contempt.
Witness: Sorry, I beat you to it.
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.
Huh, I wonder if that would work for cross exam in the US.
Very good answer, and question.
👏👏👏👏
Swear..."BUT I CAN'T ACCURATELY...recall the events." Instant nullified testimony.
"I will be as truthful as a politician "
And a kop
I am picturing the look on the judges face if you answered so ....
As honest as a priest, as sober as a judge.
Nevermind, your honor, I can neither lie nor drink that much.
"I don't recall" is a very powerful tool in these situations.
That is the best. Tried and true.
@@geraldstone8396 Police use it all the time when it's self-serving.
Just dance around the question like congress men/women do. They never actually answer questions, even if it is just yes or no.
"Your honor, I am intensely stupid and my memory is abysmal. Also where am I and who are you?"
Depends on what the definition of is, is ? 😂😂😂 as Bill Clinton once said under oath
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.
Great question! I want to hear about this. It must come up a lot.
Would love to hear Steve address this, since I've wondered the same thing.
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.
"Sir, have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no?"
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)
At my age, even the threat of 'life' in prison, is no longer a deterrent.
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.
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.
Wow. I have full confidence she is going places. 💯👏🏾
How ironic.
A child applied a practical purpose.
While the adults use it for superstitious purposes.
Really paints the big picture.
@@DsLink1306 that’s the beauty of childhood innocence. The older you get, the more exposed to corruption we become.
@@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.
@@Primalxbeast and the biggest cover story for adultery.
I was kicked out of jury duty for being honest. "Would you follow a law you disagree with?" "No."
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…
I believe this question is asked to remove prospective jurors who would exercise their right to jury nullification.
Dang, our juror selection didn't ask that. I'd answer, "if it violates the Constitution, no"
“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).
I ANSWERD THE ORDER TO APPEAR I AM READY TO LEAVE !...
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.
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).
@@1dash133 Lying to the police is definitely illegal.
Giving a police officer a fake name when they want to identify you is a criminal offense
@@1dash133 I've seen federal courts add time to a sentence if the convicted defendant lied to the police (for obstructing the investigation).
@@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 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.
That's actually good, and seems on the level. You were not in court as a subpoened witness.
You sound bad ass!
In your own case, you have the 5th.
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. :)
Yeah, that's a clear fifth. Cut and dry, you cannot be compelled their.
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.”
Hey Steve! I sort of knew what you were going to say but you always make a topic interesting. Great to listen to how you explain things!
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 👍
This is a great story. I wish it NEVER paid to fuck with people for no reason.
We need more stories like this
ok i believed it right up to the part about a cop actually getting fired
an vs. and.
@@spambot7110 cops get fired every day why is that part unbelievable?
Hi Steve. You have politicians in USA who are ignoring court orders all the time lately,with no penalty lol .
Love your show👍😎
You play the odds.. there's a chance you might have to pay the price but the reality is you can skip through the cracks for a long time.
Years ago courts wouldnt charge my ex for perjury when she was caught lying to get me in trouble and I asked prosecution to charge her!!!!
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
king
Say you will be as truthful as cops, and lawyers.
Remember, if you want to avoid testifying in court, you have to start saying "no" when the police ask if you saw anything, not in the courtroom.
BINGO!
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.
Ya, just let the criminals get away with stuff because testifying is annoying.
@@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 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?
This was going to be my question as well. I guess I will never know the answer unless I try it and report back.
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
The first part, " Do you swear to tell the truth," is straightforward to answer. No problem there, but legally, the portion of "the whole truth" and " nothing but the truth" are impossibilities to perform, and you would, in truth, be perjuring yourself immediately. What is the whole truth? Do you start from the beginning of the universe and speak everything that happened throughout history? They need to define what they mean by "whole truth." Technically, the whole truth means everything. That would take a long time.
Famously in the Watergate trial, when G. Gordon Liddy was sworn in he answered "No." He said that the judge then went apoplectic and banged his gavel so many times and so hard that it broke. He was then thrown in jail for contempt of court, but he was already being held without bail awaiting his own trial, so nothing really came of it, except that it possibly was part of the judges reasoning to give him the maximum possible sentences at his trial.
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.
@@RacerX888Technically the answer to that question is 100% yes, as you were asked if you COULD answer yes or no, not if you WOULD.
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.
Imagine if they said “I’ll say yes but lie anyway”, but then swear themselves in. Their testimony would have so much doubt it would be useless.
Well that's what politicians all say in their head right before they tell the truth.
@@B0RDE But the COMPELLED the lie by giving you NO RIGHT to refuse!
@@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.
ThioJoe, trying to make the court divide by zero, and crash itself! Brilliant!
"Before I answer, is it perjury if I lie when I say yes to the oath?"
If your willing to go to jail, a judge cant force you to do anything. The only actual power they have is what we give them.
G. Gordon Liddy was held in contempt by Congress for refusing to take the oath at an Armed Services Committee hearing on Watergate.
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?
Ok the affirmation choice of the 2 is for people who can't for whatever reason swear by God.
thank you for this!!! We are told in God's Word NOT to swear on anything or anyone; Matt 5: 34-36
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. 🤷
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
I've seen that happen, too.
LMAO, the boss was a nut
The concept of this question is highly intriguing.
“I do not recall.”
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.
Might makes right.
@@roflchopter11 I'd be interested to see how this would play out at somebody's perjury trial, if he/she can show that the oath was taken under duress.
@@mrothk01 Until they actually start charging police with perjury, it's all a power trip and a bit of a joke.
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.
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!
The Congress should have to also be under oath.
@@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.
Or they just totally ignore the order to testify and don't show up, and nothing happens.
@@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!
If they are told that they will be found in contempt of Congress, they reply "All honest citizens spend their entire life in contempt of Congress."
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."
I didn’t refuse to testify, I refused to take an oath that I would testify truthfully.
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.
@@404-Error-Not-Found sir, just answer yes or no!
@@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"?
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.
I was a PI for criminal defense attorneys and testified frequently. One time just for grins when taking the oath, I answered "yes, no, and yes." Before the judge could react, I explained that "Yes, I swear to tell the truth and yes, I swear to tell nothing but the truth. Whether or not I tell the whole truth will depend entirely on the questions those two guys ask me." "Take a seat," said the judge.
Saving this
just about did same. I said depends, judge asked what did I mean, simple judge, if the question is truthfull I'll answer with the truth but you and i know that the DA and the cops will lie, lie, lie because it is all about "winning". he said, your excused.
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.
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.
You're often called as witness?
Well stated and excellent advice. Just hope I never have to use it.
@@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…"
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.
Especially those testifying before Congress
@Cipheiz or " I have no knowledge of that"
Lol
That was Reagan! Today its "executive privilege"! It also applies to lies they said.!
Heh. A politician’s answer to a question (s)he doesn’t want to answer is to volubly answer a DIFFERENT question!
@@davidforthoffer9180 well, that’s the Psaki Method. And that works usually.
I once objected to a question from the witness stand. The prosecutor asked a question that assumed guilt on my part and demanded a yes or no answer. I said your honor I object to the question on the grounds that it doesn't matter if I say yes or no then I have incriminated myself for something I didn't do and that is perjury which is a crime. The judge sustained the objection,and then went off on the defense attorney for not objecting when he should have. He threatened to hold the defense attorney in contempt if I or any other witness had to object from the stand.
Matthew 5: 33-37 & James 5: 12 I said "NO" in District Court (in the 1970's) when asked if I would swear to tell the truth, I said, "it's against my Religion". The Judge went out of the Courtroom to try and determine what to do, came back and said I could 'Affirm' to tell the truth.
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.
Eye opening aint so ? Welcome to the Land of the Free ... as they say 🤣
Illegal firing!
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.
@@ShionWinkler That's why they find some other reason to fire you.
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.
@@digitalcurrents "If politicians can lie, so can I !!"
..Notta good plan to copy the ethics of politicians, even a POTUS..
Good stuff and entertaining. I love 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.
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.
yes, I'm that one also.
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.
Yep that would probably be me also.
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.
My old law teacher once took a case to the 5th circuit court of appeals (and won) with the argument: "Do you want me to tell you the truth that I have limited knowledge of the English language and often do not tell the truth - or do you want me to lie and tell you that I know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?"
I know a process server. He told me that he can be called into court to testify that a party to a legal proceeding was served court documents. He said that he has never had to, but it can happen. But there's a problem, he spends his entire day, seven days a week, knocking on doors. Sometimes people are home, sometimes they are not, but at the end of the day, he says he would have difficulty remembering the details of individual services. After a month, forget about it! So, he says, he fears getting called into court, getting to the stand, raising his hand and swearing to tell the truth, and the answer to the question "Do you recall serving documents to the defendant?" is "No." He says he has never had to go to court, but this part bothers him. I think he is OK because he is telling the truth, but it sure won't be helping the case any.
Now, I assume that he could respond to the lawyer that issued the subpoena and tell them in advance, "Sorry pal, but I know that I served those documents because I completed an affidavit that says I did. But I do NOT remember any details, especially what the defendant looks like," and the lawyer will not call him in court. But I don't know how lawyers or courts work. Maybe he's OK, but maybe he's screwed?
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.
Then the sherif is the bad guy and everyone’s gonna riot and say oh no cops bad defund em 🙄
Fucking hell that’s a shit position to be in.
@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.
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.
(1) My late buddy was inducted during the Nam oil war. When they directed everyone to step forward, as part of the induction and to signify they agreed to serve, he didn't move, leaving him standing alone, behind everyone else. Chaos ensued. They threatened and coerced, eventually taking him to a room, where they tried to pressure him to volunteer.
The stench of the rat grew to him. That they tried so hard to get him to do something, as a condition of being inducted (draft) trigger alarms. Eventually, he was sent home.
(2) When I was in court to testify on a friend's behalf, the prosecutor played the "yes or no" game. I elaborated, giving my answers. After he sought to correct me, I continued to elaborate in my answers. He sought the court's assistance. I objected, pointing out I had just sworn to tell the truth, but by just saying yes or no could not answer the questions, AND by him trying to limit my answers, the prosecutor was tampering with my testimony.
Comedy ensued. Interestingly, the prosecutor no longer had any questions for me and he was left with the testimony I gave for the defense.
You can say no as long as you have meds for panic attacks and tell the judge, I can't because I have panic attacks and will tell anyone anything they want to hear just to get away from them.
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."
That would be a fun one to be in the gallery for.
I like how you think.
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."
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 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.
The solution to testifying is the same as what most politicians do. "I do not remember."
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.
You didn't get fired?
@@charlottekeck8547 Nope, not fired.
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.
You can answer "No"...and you can also expand any "yes or no"
I had to testify in court as a witness to a fight that lead to some one getting stabbed in my front yard I didn't know any one that was involved two girls in their 20s attacked a young teenage girl and the girl ran to my house looking for someone one to help her I was in the house so I went out side to see what was going on and I seen two 20 year old girls beating up the teen girl the teen stabbed one of the girls and I yelled at them to get off my property and the teen girl ran up to me and asked me to help her I had to go to court to testify and every time I would tell what I seen the prosecutor would stop me and say that's hear say the teen girl was charged with stabbing her attacker I got mad because the prosecutor didn't want me to tell the truth so the next time the prosecutor tried to stop me from answering a question I told her that I didn't know that my 1st amendment ended at the steps of the court house and I told her that every thing that she was saying in court was hear say because I didn't see you there when the girl was stabbed the judge laughed and the prosecutor didn't know what to say
Did you not use punctuation so he would think this was a one sentence question?
Did you also forget to use proper sentence and paragraph structure to properly confuse the prosecutor?
Get off his back!
(Grammer patrol (oh God! Or is it syntact (and did I spell syntact correctly( and am I using parentheses correctly (and how deep in parentheses am I even?)))))))))))
Anyways, it was a great story and it takes guts to stand up against a prostituter on the stand, bit he did it for justice. Something that's in short supply in our conviction system!
Damn it ! I miss spelled but, but im not editing again for the English monitors!
That made my day.
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.
Getting out of Jury duty is easy. Tell them you are racist and as a result you can't be impartial. Works every time.
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.
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?
Because you people are in bondage to the State.
You can always say "I can't be sure of what I saw or heard."
Spoken like a true lawyer, 12 minutes to answer a question that really only needed 30 seconds.
He is just explaining it so that we can see what happens and why.
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, ..., ..., ..."
Lawyers charge by the minute. It may be a hard habit to break.
OMG, this! Cut 90% of the fat out of your video and just get to the point.
Just billing hours.
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.
In modern times of spam calls I would never go anywhere based on the phone call, moreover voice message
@@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.
@@jimsackmanbusinesscoaching1344 Ah, so these were all mishaps internal to your company. I have misread it
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).
If it is worded "do you swear ...", there is a way to say "no" but you will quickly make the correction and then "affirm" rather than "swear". Some people hold a religious belief that to "swear" is a sin. This is why there is the "do you swear or affirm" thing in some court hearings.
Steve, you are convoluting the refusal to tell the truth with the willingness to testify! Reminds me of the old joke, are you a liar? No!!!
It’s odd how government gives them selfs financial raises every year or so, but the jury & witness fees are so out of date.
Hummm..
By saying “no”, my argument would be”I’m not refusing to testify, I’m stating that I’m not swearing to tell the truth.”
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.
What if you refuse to testify because someone has threatened you or your family?
You would rather just stay away from it!
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" ??
Were you represented by counsel?
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.
wow.
@@shaunofthedead3000 that is the truth..
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.
I've never heard of anyone charged with prudery usually it's the other way around
"...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, for one, am honored to share this comment thread with such gentlemen and scholars.
I actually know someone that did this. When the judge asked him "why not?", he said "cuz I don't know the truth". Judge said "you are dismissed".
I made a judge laugh when I was sworn in. Told em “Im gonna tell you the truth whether you like it or not”.
"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! :)
Well if MTG can get away with it, why not me?
Ahh the republican defense.
@@johncrunk8038 That may depend on a whole host of factors. Do you suck at plausibly lying?
Cheers!
@@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! :)
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!
Question, should the Jury hear the witness affirm , etc , to tell the truth ? or should they just belive the Judge ?
@@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.
That is because in his 30 years, no man has stood by his truth and refused to be used as a rubber stamp
It could be someone who objected to the oath on religious grounds. Having them explain that to the jury could be prejudicial.
Back in the 1970's in District Court for the County of Walla Walla, State of Washington, I was asked to hold up my hand and asked, "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?" And I said "NO"! Then I added, "It is against my Religion to swear or take an oath". The Judge was taken by surprise, took a recess and finally came back after consulting the RCW. He said there was an alternative to those who took literally Mathew 5: 33-37 and James 5:12 in scripture. I was allowed to Affirm that I would tell the truth. I use to mark out on voting ballots 'swear' where my signature was required and write in 'affirm'. They finally after a few years got the message and printed the ballots with, 'Do swear or affirm'.
The simplest reply is “ I don’t recall”, you can’t be charged for perjury if you claim you don’t remember.
"The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?" You answer: "To the best of my ability and understanding-Yes; your honor."
The secret is if you know a case is coming up, leave the state, or even the county without a trace so you can't be served until the case is resolved. If a proscess server can't make direct contact in person, you can't be served.
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.
This just shows it is an entrapment technique for the show. It changes from contempt of court to perjury......which one has the hire punishment? Remember, there is a treasure hunter that has been in jail for over 5 years not for what he did but because he won't answer the judges question.....
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.
I bet his memory worked just fine when people owed him money.
He is set for release in 2024
If I don't like the side that is calling me up, I'll just make it look like we rehearsed what they wanted me to say to ruin their case 😂
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 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.
One of my friends was a rental property owner tenants boyfriend did damage to house with neighbor witnessing it. He was charged. They went to court with the neighbor as witness for my friend. He had to miss an entire day's work all because he had witnessed the damage. When I mentioned it my friend said she didn't care she got the money for the damaged door and to heck with the poor slob who lost his wages for that day simply because he did the right thing. Yea it ain't fair
I know Nothing, I see Nothing....
It's about time those compensations for witnessing and jury duty etc are updated to current standards. 15$ for a witness is not enough. 50$ is more reasonable. But if a witness is required to be at court all day, it should be 100$
I agree. I don't think he even received $15. But what bothered me the most was my former friend's callous attitude toward the guy losing money . In my state Grand Juey is called 1 x month 12 x's a year. Pay lol is $1 or $5
well, that's rental property owners for ya. good call "former"-ing that friend
In Ohio, a subpoena is compulsory process but not a court "order," which must be signed by a judge, not an attorney. "Rule 45 allows discovery to be obtained from nonparties in a manner that closely parallels Rule 34 discovery of parties. Civ.R. 45(A) and 45(D)(2) clarify that a party may use subpoenas to obtain electronically stored information from nonparties. It allows the party issuing the subpoena to specify the form or forms of production for electronically stored information while prohibiting the requesting party from demanding that the subpoenaed person provide the same information in more than one electronic format."
I saw a person in Maine that said no and the judge merely said "Well, just be sure tell me when you're lying." By the way I haven't seen a bible used for taking court oaths in many many years.
lol...I wonder if that would work from the judges POV
Part of why you don't see a bible is that Christians aren't supposed to swear unto God or use his name profanely. Granted that they pick and choose how to follow the bible.
judges used to carry a bible in to the court room . That's why people stood when a judge entered. For the bible. With the extreme enforcement of separation of church and state (a good thing), a judge does not carry a bible with them, and people don't swear to god.
I'm still trying to figure out why I would stand for a PUBLIC SERVENT who by law doesn't represent the bible anymore...
I have testified in courts and at deposition probably the better part of a thousand times---mostly as an expert witness. It has been my observation that there are people who perjure themselves repeatedly and suffer no significant consequences. The theory, I suppose, is that the decider(s) of fact will recognize and disregard the perjured testimony, but it isn't necessarily so. BTW, I discovered that my paternal grandmother perjured herself on a form naming my father's father. That went undiscovered for about a hundred years until I figured it out and corrected it---despite the fact an accurate record was on file in the same county as the inaccurate one.
The reason is, its hard to prove it's a lie, or just a mistaken belief. They have to have evidence that you knew it was a lie when you said it and it's almost impossible to prove
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.
How about this, "I will neither confirm nor deny the presence or absence of truth or falsehood in any statement I make."