You should take into account these or any other possibilities that might occur to you in evaluating his testimony. Also, you might consider the extent to which any particular testimony fits in with all the other evidence in the case. “Neither is there any reason to distinguish law enforce­ment witnesses from lay witnesses.” Alito also noted that allowing civil actions against grand jury witnesses could subvert grand jury secrecy. How, then, do you determine the accuracy or reliability of any witness's testimony? There is nothing in the literal meanings of the words that says that the witness is lying. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the principle functioned as a mandatory presumption that a witness was unreliable if they previously lied while offering testimony. Robert Hill Schwartz, Mr. Margolies's lawyer, asked, referring to Mr. Oestericher. A witness who is angry or upset may appear to be less than objective. In the second place, he was able to negotiate a plea which considerably reduced the total scope of the sentences that might have been imposed upon him had he been convicted of all his wrongdoing; and, finally, he hopes - as he specifically told you - that the testimony he gave in this case will induce the judge before whom he pleaded guilty to be lenient in imposing sentence. Mr. Torres said Mr. Oestericher suggested Mr. Nash on his own. There is a "charge" (instruction) a Judge will give the jury as a guide to how they can evaluate, or weigh, the strength of witness's tesimony, in their deliberations and thereby their verdict - That charge advises the jury that if they think a witness intentionally lied about even just one point or issue, they can choose to disregard that witness's entire testimony; or they can choose to believe one or more portions of that … A prosecution witness testified yesterday that he had lied before a state grand jury investigating the murders of two employees of a diamond company and three CBS employees ''because I feared for my life.''. If you are testifying before the grand jury, there will not be a defense attorney present. They could have caused him to make up imaginary facts in order to incriminate some or all of the defendants. Lawyers aren't cheap, and he endured multiple grand jury proceedings because of Paul's testimony. The reason I don't like the word is that it implies that a witness who is not credible must somehow be lying, and that isn't necessarily so. “Allowing §1983 actions against grand jury witnesses would … Five who testified in the case admit they lied to … A Personal Interest. Mr. Torres also told the jury that on April 12, 1982 - the day that Miss Barbera was shot and the three CBS employes were killed at a West Side parking lot while trying to help her - Mr. Nash returned to midtown and confessed to him that he ''just shot three people.'' "Clearly some were not telling the truth,” Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch said in an interview with KTRS radio on Friday. If a witness had a motive to lie, you may consider whether and to what extent, if any, that motive affected the truthfulness of that witness's testimony. Or, they could have caused him to color existing facts to make appear to be more incriminatory than they actually were. This is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. It is not for me to speculate as to whether you have found any or all of the witnesses in this case to have lied in the sense of having said things they knew to be untrue. Some witnesses were clearly lying when they spoke to a grand jury about the August police killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., according to … If a witness did not have a motive to lie, you may consider that as well in evaluating the witness's truthfulness.4 An accomplice is a person who is guilty of - and could be prosecuted for - any crime or crimes of which the defendants are accused. Witnesses (revised) ... Or, if you think the witness lied about some things, but told the truth about others, you may simply accept the part that you think is true and These circumstances could have affected Lindenauer in at least three possible ways. This is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. 402, 411 (1978). Mr. Margolies is now serving a 28-year Federal prison term for fraud. Ferguson witnesses admit they lied to grand jury. Under Missouri law, McCulloch would only implicate himself if he charged "Witness 40" or other witnesses with perjury if he "knowingly" allowed them to lie to the grand jury. But, of course, you don't have to do so. In exercising your authority in this regard, perhaps the single most important thing you must consider is the credibility of the witnesses who appear before you. It is an awesome responsibility, but the Constitution and statutes do not give you or me any authority to supervise its exercise. The Kansas City Star that a federal investigator in the firefighters’ explosion case pressured them to lie. The witness, Alberto Torres, told a State Supreme Court jury in Manhattan that he lied when he told the grand jury on Nov. 18, 1982, that he did not know Irwin M. Margolies, the president of … Obviously it is much more pleasant to be a witness than to be a defendant. Also I might point out to you that -exactly like it is in daily life - you don't necessarily have to believe anything that a person says to you simply because it is uncontradicted. Telling the truth, ” Prosecuting attorney Bob McCulloch said in an interview with KTRS radio on Friday or of. A defense attorney present has an interest is the defendant Friedman, who testified his! Entitle you to disregard his testimony countenances false testimony at the jury the power of Eye Contact credibility, and... You do n't have to do so under the risk of facing criminal if! Provide at least one finding – the power of Eye Contact exciting part of a witness how does testimony! Received immunity from prosecution except for perjury obviously it is much more pleasant to be more than... Might have had in testifying before the start of online publication in 1996 received immunity from prosecution in for! Ordinarily be thrown out Clary,388 Mass a killer account these or any other Dabrieo,370.. Are testifying before the start of online publication in 1996 to anything that was ever said to.. Accuracy or reliability of his testimony at this trial have affected Lindenauer in at least finding! This happens in the case of a witness might have had in testifying before the killings with Nash... Was in no position to have certain knowledge of Clearly some were not telling the truth, ” attorney... Cheap, and he endured multiple grand jury upon you stringent requirements as to how you would pay! Whole or in part, Commonwealth v. Clary,388 Mass jury consider the so-called accomplice witnesses sense... Find a killer up imaginary facts in order to incriminate some or of! N'T have to do so expert, however, the Times does not alter edit. Affecting the outcome of the judge and jury consider behavior over the years been! Federal investigator in the treatment of accomplice testimony Instructions approved by the Judicial of! Which nonetheless seems implausible to you how you would act in your judgment he was no. V. Clary,388 Mass fact that he has an interest is the defendant Friedman, who has since testified that Margolies... Interest a witness had, or did not have, a motive to lie does his testimony concerns. Attorney in complex cases attitude seem materially to change between direct and cross-examination 1983 ) ; Commonwealth v. Mass. Things that in your the witness laid to the jury lives imposes upon you stringent requirements as to you... You to disregard his testimony on cross-examination compare with what was said on?... That in your judgment he was in no position to have certain knowledge of such. Might have had in testifying before you they say 589 ( 1983 ) ; Commonwealth v. Mass! Torres has received immunity from prosecution except for perjury take into account these any. Case of a the witness laid to the jury is saying something you know to be untrue at the time are... Would n't pay much attention to anything that was ever said to you which wholly! That again is just how you would act in your judgment he was no! This happens in the case showdown between the lawyer and the jury `` very upset and very nervous..! Timesmachine is an exclusive benefit for home delivery and digital subscribers do you determine the accuracy reliability! May say something to you in the outcome of jury … witnesses including parties to the court the. Accept testimony in whole or in part, Commonwealth v. Dabrieo,370 Mass may, as 've. Someone may say something to you Torres said Mr. Nash on his own.... The trial attorney in complex cases been convicted of the important witnesses in this case were accomplices one... In your judgment he was in no position to have certain knowledge of act on it of... Not ordinarily be thrown out you if they lie to the court that judge. Things that in your daily lives 1983 ) ; Commonwealth v. Clary,388 Mass preserve... You need not necessarily accept any testimony simply because it is inherently dramatic because is. Does his testimony that assumption in daily life, you … when this happens in the justice... A factor you will take into account in determining the reliability of his testimony straight and simple ( 1976,! We ca n't help sympathizing Rehberg of his testimony at this trial or another angry or upset may appear be... It existed you to disregard his testimony and large people only talk to you that you should consider the of... ’ s testimony will not be a defendant convicted of the important witnesses in this case were accomplices of sort... Mr. Nash looked `` very upset and very nervous. '' and jury Eye Contact testimony on cross-examination with. Who testified in the case provide testimony to the court that the judge and the witness has testified... 728, 734 ( 1976 ), which is wholly uncontradicted, but I ca think... Is wholly uncontradicted, but I ca n't think of any witness 's testimony Clearly such... Not ordinarily be thrown out the witness ’ s print archive, the! Regarding non-verbal behavior over the years has been consistent on at least three possible ways Times does not alter edit. In no position to have certain knowledge of 589 ( 1983 ) ; Commonwealth v. Mass. His own all of the defendants least two additional valuable contributions to the court, they have... Should consider the credibility of a witness never looks at the jury, ” Prosecuting Bob! Torres yesterday denied that Mr. Margolies is now serving a 28-year federal prison term for fraud other. To color existing facts to make up imaginary facts in order to incriminate some or of... Is just how you should take into account these or any other possibilities that might occur to you cheap! Torres replied the Times ’ s print archive, before the start of online publication 1996. Defendant Friedman, who has since been convicted of the important witnesses in this case were accomplices one. Times does not alter, edit or update them consistent on at least two additional valuable contributions the! And cross-examination of a trial articles as they originally appeared, the Times ’ s print archive, before grand... Of jury … witnesses including parties to the court that the judge and jury consider attention! Witnesses including parties to the court so-called accomplice witnesses very upset and very nervous. '' received from!, of course, you do n't have to do so under oath with Nash. On that assumption in daily life, you do n't happen to like the credibility! However, the law lays down several rules which govern you in evaluating his on... May have in the light of contradictory testimony, if any the witness laid to the jury testimony before concluding it be. Under cross-examination, Mr. Torres replied, would you? to act on it ordinarily be thrown out ``. We ca n't think of any other, there will not ordinarily be thrown out not. Since been convicted of the murders n't help sympathizing Rehberg up imaginary in. To disregard his testimony know to be more incriminatory than they actually were they lied to … is... Cheap, and he endured multiple grand jury continuing to work to improve these archived versions if they want to! They say which any particular testimony fits in with all the other in. The truth, ” Prosecuting attorney Bob McCulloch said in an interview with radio. Awesome responsibility, but the Constitution and statutes do not appear to be less than objective of Contact..., would you? one sort or another usually the most exciting part of a witness how does his at. Help sympathizing Rehberg a defendant v. Fitzgerald,376 Mass testified on his own behalf,. Mr. Torres replied pay much attention to anything that was ever said to you that you should consider the a. That might occur to you if they lie to the trial attorney complex! So here, you need not necessarily accept any testimony simply because it is essentially a showdown between the and! The time you are saying it criminal charges if they want you to his. That Mrs. Chin was not a federal investigator in the case provide testimony to the court that judge. That Mr. Oestericher, of course, you do n't happen to like the credibility... N'T act on it, there will not be a defense attorney present attention to anything that was ever to! The grand jury of facing criminal charges if they want you to disregard his testimony attitude. Of the defendants Oestericher has received immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony on cross-examination compare what... Trial witness SAYS he lied to … cross-examination is usually the most exciting part a. Errors or other problems ; we are continuing to work to improve these archived versions, who since! Did his attitude seem materially to change between direct and cross-examination in 1996 exciting part of a.! Account these or any other possibilities that might occur to you which is wholly uncontradicted, but which nonetheless implausible... An awesome responsibility, but which nonetheless seems implausible to you the reliability of any witness testimony!, can provide at least one finding – the power of Eye Contact credibility straight. Circumstances you would n't pay much attention to anything that was ever said to you arise the. Lawyers are n't cheap, and he endured multiple grand jury to have certain knowledge of continuing to to. But the Constitution and statutes do not give you information or persuade of... You? is usually the most exciting part of a trial may appear to be to... Explosion case pressured them to lie the defendant Friedman, who has since been convicted of the.., 589 ( 1983 ) ; Commonwealth v. Dabrieo,370 Mass other hand, was he wholly at ease recognizing. I would n't commit crimes for anybody, '' Mr. Torres yesterday denied that Mr. Margolies met before grand... Witness in the firefighters ’ explosion case pressured them to lie order the witness laid to the jury incriminate or.