| Copyright 2005 All Rights Reserved Charles E. Marunde & FreeRealEstateLaw.com |
I once impeached a witness
on the stand in trial several
times, including the use of
photographs that completely
impeached his earlier
testimony on an important
factual claim he made.
Although the impeachment
was conducted with skill and
was a text book example
used in an Evidence 101
class, the witness' perjury
apparently made no
impression on the judge at
all. If I am hard on judges, it
is on two main points:
1. Judges cannot or do not
discern the difference
between the good honest
person and the bad dishonest
person, which could be done
on the basis of credibility;
and
2. Judges do absolutely
nothing in civil cases about
perjury.
Charles E. Marunde,
Attorney
on the stand in trial several
times, including the use of
photographs that completely
impeached his earlier
testimony on an important
factual claim he made.
Although the impeachment
was conducted with skill and
was a text book example
used in an Evidence 101
class, the witness' perjury
apparently made no
impression on the judge at
all. If I am hard on judges, it
is on two main points:
1. Judges cannot or do not
discern the difference
between the good honest
person and the bad dishonest
person, which could be done
on the basis of credibility;
and
2. Judges do absolutely
nothing in civil cases about
perjury.
Charles E. Marunde,
Attorney
| The Master Liar Under Oath |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Imagine someone on the witness stand who is a master liar, has been all
his life. He is asked a series of questions, but it doesn't matter what
questions he is asked, he has the perfect answer for every question. He
stays awake at night thinking about every possibility. Here is a true
example.
The NFH (neighbor from hell) is on the witness stand under cross
examination. He is asked questions relevant about the boundary dispute,
including a question about a very specific date which he is relying upon to
support his complete fabrication of his story. When he is asked about the
alleged date of his action, he states a specific time and date almost five
years earlier. Those of us involved in extensive investigations of the facts
know unquestionably that the evidence would completely controvert his
bold perjury, but his answer is so powerful and emotional that it can
persuade a naive judge. His answer?
"Well, I wouldn't normally remember the exact day let alone the time of
something like this, but . . . (a pause with everyone in the court room on
the edge of their seats), the reason I remember this is because I got a
phone call from my great aunt who lived in West Virginia. (Tilts his head
and facial expressions indicating he is about to say something important.
This kind of dysfunctional person is often an incredibly good actor.) and
she told me my father had just died of a heart attack. My father and I
were very close. It was a phone call I'll never forget. That's why I
remember the date and time so well."
The court room is silent. Who wouldn't want to believe that? It sounds so
real, so believable.
On rebuttal a good attorney would be thinking about how to rebut that
testimony, but good luck. The father was dead, the great aunt was dead,
and who else could be found that would know anything about these
things? A judge would not grant a motion to continue the trial to another
date while these things were checked. Of course, the NFH knew this.
his life. He is asked a series of questions, but it doesn't matter what
questions he is asked, he has the perfect answer for every question. He
stays awake at night thinking about every possibility. Here is a true
example.
The NFH (neighbor from hell) is on the witness stand under cross
examination. He is asked questions relevant about the boundary dispute,
including a question about a very specific date which he is relying upon to
support his complete fabrication of his story. When he is asked about the
alleged date of his action, he states a specific time and date almost five
years earlier. Those of us involved in extensive investigations of the facts
know unquestionably that the evidence would completely controvert his
bold perjury, but his answer is so powerful and emotional that it can
persuade a naive judge. His answer?
"Well, I wouldn't normally remember the exact day let alone the time of
something like this, but . . . (a pause with everyone in the court room on
the edge of their seats), the reason I remember this is because I got a
phone call from my great aunt who lived in West Virginia. (Tilts his head
and facial expressions indicating he is about to say something important.
This kind of dysfunctional person is often an incredibly good actor.) and
she told me my father had just died of a heart attack. My father and I
were very close. It was a phone call I'll never forget. That's why I
remember the date and time so well."
The court room is silent. Who wouldn't want to believe that? It sounds so
real, so believable.
On rebuttal a good attorney would be thinking about how to rebut that
testimony, but good luck. The father was dead, the great aunt was dead,
and who else could be found that would know anything about these
things? A judge would not grant a motion to continue the trial to another
date while these things were checked. Of course, the NFH knew this.
