Testimony is a solemn attestation as to the truth of a matter.
49-512: Testimony is the statement of a witness in court. Testimony may also refer to: Testimony The words "testimony" and "testify" both derive from the Latin word testis , referring to the notion of a disinterested third-party witness. In the law , testimony is a form of evidence in which a witness makes a "solemn declaration or affirmation ... for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact". According to Bryan A. Garner ,
98-669: A "share". Some published oral or written autobiographical narratives are considered "testimonial literature " particularly when they present evidence or first person accounts of human rights abuses, violence and war , and living under conditions of social oppression . This usage of the term comes originally from Latin America and the Spanish term "testimonio" when it emerged from human rights tribunals , truth commissions , and other international human rights instruments in countries such as Chile and Argentina . One of
147-468: A conviction is more than 10 years old, the probative value of admitting the conviction must substantially outweigh the danger of unfair prejudice under FRE 609(b). A party may impeach a witness for character by cross-examining the witness but not by introducing extrinsic evidence, about specific instances of prior misconduct, often called "prior bad acts," as long as the questions relate to the witness's own character for truthfulness (or untruthfulness) or to
196-412: A limited purpose". Even more unlikely is the prospect that a juror who understands the instruction will be psychologically capable of obeying it. The only practical impact of this limited admissibility is that the evidence cannot be used to prop up a weak case that would otherwise be dismissed by the court for insufficient evidence, as it was admitted only for the impeachment of a witness. The general rule
245-423: A minority of jurisdictions that follow FRE 801, the prior inconsistent statement may be used not only to impeach but also as substantive evidence. A prior inconsistent statement is admissible as substantive evidence if A prior inconsistent statement offered solely for impeachment purposes is admissible regardless of whether it satisfies those requirements. The cross-examining attorney need not disclose or show
294-463: A personal testimony about their faith and experiences in living the Christian life: 203. What do we mean by testimony? By testimony we usually mean witnessing before others to the fact that God has forgiven our sins. 204. Who is benefited by testimony? A testimony will help the one who makes it—it will strengthen his faith. It is also an encouragement to those who hear. 205. What does
343-619: A profession of their faith , often to a congregation of believers. In Mormonism , testifying is also referred to as "bearing one's testimony", and often involves the sharing of personal experience—ranging from a simple anecdote to an account of personal revelation —followed by a statement of belief that has been confirmed by this experience. Within Mormon culture , the word "testimony" has become synonymous with "belief". Although "testimony" and "belief" are often used interchangeably, they are inherently different. Most Mormons believe that when faith
392-621: A regulatory agency as part of the process of making or changing regulations . Christians in general, especially within the Evangelical tradition, use the term "to testify" or "to give one's testimony" to mean "to tell the story of how one became a Christian". Commonly it may refer to a specific event in a Christian's life in which God did something deemed particularly worth sharing . Christians often give their testimony at their own baptism , church services , and at evangelistic events. Many Christians have also published their testimony on
441-462: A safe driver (no objection was made to the question), the opponent can now contradict by eliciting on cross-examination that the driver was involved in several accidents. Had contradiction impeachment not been permitted, the unsafe character of the witness would have been barred by the rules of evidence. Another example is more extreme. Suppose the defendant is on trial for possession of heroin . The defendant's testimony will naturally deny possessing
490-520: A sample collected from the defendant, rather than being described as a "match". A wide range of factors make it physically impossible to prove for certain that two hair or tissue samples came from a common source. Having not actually witnessed the defendant at the scene, the expert witness can not state for a fact that the sample is a match to the defendant, particularly when the samples were collected at different times and different places by different collectors using different collection methods. Ultimately,
539-405: A trivial ("collateral") fact like the color of the hat worn on the day she witnessed the accident, but on more important matters normally excluded by the rules of relevance, contradiction may be allowed. Thus, a witness might not normally be permitted to testify being a safe driver and the opponent cannot normally prove that the driver is unsafe, but if the witness nonetheless happens to testify being
SECTION 10
#1732765338361588-584: A witness is testifying as an expert witness , testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is generally limited to those opinions or inferences that are rationally based on the perceptions of the witness and are helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony. Legitimate expert witnesses with a genuine understanding of legal process and the inherent dangers of false or misleading testimony refrain from making statements of fact. They also recognize that they are in fact not witnesses to an alleged crime or other event in any way, shape or form. Their expertise
637-423: A witness's credibility cannot be bolstered, only impeached. Additionally, a party may impeach a witness for "bad" character by introducing evidence of the witness's prior conviction of a crime, subject to a series of rules laid out in 609(a). If the witness's prior conviction was for a crime involving dishonesty or false statement, evidence of that crime is admissible for impeachment purposes regardless of whether
686-496: A witness. The witness was unable to sense what he claimed to have (such as he could not see from where he was), or he lacked the requisite mental capacity. Older common law would exclude an incompetent witness from testifying. Modern rules, such as the Federal Rules of Evidence , allow the witness on the stand (in most cases) to consider competence as one of many factors that juries are to consider to determine credibility of
735-441: Is a proposition conveyed by one entity (person or group) to another entity, whether through speech or writing or through facial expression, that is based on the entity's knowledge base. The proposition believed on the basis of a testimony is justified if conditions are met which assess, among other things, the speaker's reliability (whether her testimony is true often) and the hearer's possession of positive reasons (for instance, that
784-434: Is acted upon, individuals can receive a spiritual witness which solidifies belief into testimony; that if the exercise of faith leads to good works, they can know their religious principles are true. An individual who no longer believes in the religion may be referred to as having "lost their testimony". In the context of large-group awareness training , anecdotal testimony may operate in the forms of " sharing " or delivering
833-438: Is in the examination of evidence or relevant facts in the case. They should make no firm judgement or claim or accusation about any aspect of the case outside their narrow range of expertise. They also should not allege any fact they can not immediately and credibly prove scientifically. For example, a hair sample from a crime scene entered as evidence by the prosecution should be described by an expert witness as "consistent with"
882-474: Is known as a Bighum hearing. A party may impeach a witness in the US by introducing evidence of any of the following (remembered via the mnemonic BICCC ): Courts permit parties to cross-examine a witness in order to impeach that witness based on demonstration of bias . Witness bias may be catalyzed by any number of circumstances, ranging from the witness's blood relationship to a party to his financial stake in
931-410: Is left with two pretrial statements that are inconsistent with each other, but only one is inconsistent with the testimony, and both were made before the witness was allegedly gotten to. Thus, there might be softening of the accusation that the testimony flows from such as a bribe. Also, there is always a case for allowing a prior consistent statement made at any time before trial to help explain away what
980-402: Is that the proponent of a witness may not attempt to build up the witness's credibility prior to being impeached. The rationale is that the witness is presumed trustworthy. It also speeds proceedings by not spending time bolstering when the other side may not even impeach the witness. To rehabilitate a witness, the proponent is confined to using the same techniques used by the opponent to impeach
1029-715: The Bible say about testimony? "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" (Rom. 10:10). "And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony" (Rev. 12:11). —Catechism of the Pillar of Fire Church In the Religious Society of Friends , the word testimony is used to refer to the ways in which Friends testify or bear witness to their beliefs in their everyday lives. In this context,
SECTION 20
#17327653383611078-578: The character for untruthfulness of a previous witness that the current witness has testified about before. Under California Evidence Code Section 787, a party may not use either cross-examination or extrinsic evidence to impeach a witness by showing specific instances of prior misconduct in civil cases. Proposition 8 , the Victims Bill of Rights passed by in 1982, permits parties to use both cross-examination and extrinsic evidence about specific instances of prior misconduct in criminal cases to impeach
1127-438: The confession was obtained in violation of his Miranda rights. Harris , in turn, led to a decision allowing similar impeachment by physical evidence that had been suppressed in the same case as having been seized from defendant in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Impeachment by contradiction evidence is admitted solely to impeach: it cannot be used to prove anything about the events being litigated but only to discredit
1176-536: The contents of a prior inconsistent statement to a witness prior to the moment he is questioned. If the witness's attorney asks to see the prior inconsistent statement, however, the questioning attorney must show or disclose its contents. The majority of US jurisdictions permit parties to impeach witnesses by demonstrating their "bad" character regarding truthfulness. Under the Federal Rules a party may demonstrate that by reputation or opinion testimony. That is,
1225-491: The contradicting evidence because the second attorney already had only one chance to prove the facts of the case as claimed. Since his opponent put on a witness, that "opens the door" to strengthen the case by going again with more proof of what happened: the only legal excuse for the rehash of the claim is impeaching by contradiction his opponent's witness. Another use of impeachment by contradiction can be explained negatively. An attorney cannot contradict an opponent's witness on
1274-427: The credibility of any witness. In the US, a party has the option of discrediting a witness through impeachment by cross-examining the witness about facts that reflect poorly on the witness's credibility or, in some cases, by introducing extrinsic evidence that reflects negatively on the witness's truthfulness or knowledge. In Pennsylvania, the procedure for determining whether a testifying defendant may be impeached
1323-399: The crime was a misdemeanor or a felony . If the witness's prior conviction was for a crime not involving dishonesty or false statement, evidence of the conviction is admissible for impeachment only for felonies; misdemeanors are inadmissible. Furthermore, if the cross-examining party seeks to introduce evidence of a felony not involving dishonesty or false statement, its success in impeaching
1372-459: The declarant's signature together with a statement that they were making the unsworn declaration under penalty of perjury were deemed as a matter of law to be sufficiently solemn to remind the declarant of their duty to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (meaning notarization was no longer required). As of 2006, about 20 states also had similar statutes allowing the use of unsworn declarations in their state courts . Unless
1421-428: The defendant, the evidence of the prior felony conviction for a crime not involving dishonesty or false statement is admissible unless the party objecting to the evidence succeeds in the more difficult task of proving that the probative value of the felony conviction is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant. The probative value must substantially outweigh unfair prejudice. Finally, if
1470-409: The editor of Black's Law Dictionary , the word "testimony" is properly used as a mass noun (that is, always uninflected regardless of number ), and not a count noun . Testimony may be oral or written, and it is usually made by oath or affirmation under penalty of perjury . Historically, to be admissible in court and to ensure maximum reliability and validity, written testimony presented in
1519-587: The form of an affidavit (i.e., the witness would not be appearing in court at the hearing at which the affidavit was considered as evidence) was usually witnessed by another person (in many common law jurisdictions, a notary public ) who had to also swear to or affirm its authenticity, also under penalty of perjury. In 1976, the United States Congress enacted a statute allowing for the use of an unsworn declaration under penalty of perjury in lieu of an affidavit in federal courts . In other words,
Testimony (disambiguation) - Misplaced Pages Continue
1568-505: The internet. After the early church began to preach about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ , Peter and the other apostles asserted that "we are witnesses of these things". Pope Francis has commented on Peter being "strong in his testimony", describing "testimony" as the "lifeblood" of the church. Many Methodist churches in the holiness tradition devote a portion of their Sunday evening service and/or mid-week Wednesday evening service of worship to allow members to give
1617-399: The issue. Exceptions have since been abolished, due to the widespread recognition that forcing lawyers to take them was a waste of time. When a party uses the testimony of a witness to show proof, the opposing party often attempts to impeach the witness. This may be done using cross-examination , calling into question the witness's competence , or by attacking the character or habit of
1666-468: The most famous, though controversial, of these works to be translated into English is I, Rigoberta Menchú . The autobiographies of Frederick Douglass can be considered among the earliest significant English-language works in this genre . The biographies of marginalized women such as Jesusita Aragon and Maria Elena Lucas , made from recordings and transcriptions by oral historian Fran Leeper Buss , are more recent examples. In philosophy , testimony
1715-411: The opponent shows that the witness made a prior inconsistent statement and implies that after that statement and prior to trial the witness was "gotten to" or otherwise developed a motive to lie in court, rehabilitation can be attempted by showing that the witness made a prior consistent statement (consistent with the testimony) before the alleged events that gave rise to the alleged motive to lie. The jury
1764-432: The order in which the attorneys present their evidence. When a defense attorney calls a witness who testifies about what happened, or plaintiff's attorney or a prosecutor calls a witness in rebuttal, that gives the opposing attorney the opportunity to present evidence contradicting that witness. Had impeachment by contradiction not been allowed by the rules of evidence, the second attorney would have been barred from presenting
1813-401: The outcome of the litigation. Most US jurisdictions require a cross-examiner to lay a foundation before extrinsic evidence can be used to demonstrate bias for impeachment purposes. Although Rule 610 provides that evidence of a witness's "religious beliefs or opinions is not admissible to attack or support the witness's credibility," an inquiry into the witness's religious beliefs or opinions for
1862-419: The particular drug. Suppose the defendant foolishly testifies on direct examination, "In fact, I've never possessed heroin in my life." The prosecutor can then, on cross-examination, impeach him with an exhibit of heroin seized on an unrelated occasion even if it was seized in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The Walder decision led to a ruling that a defendant can be impeached by his confession even if
1911-484: The purpose of showing interest or bias because of them is not within the rule's prohibition. If a witness is accused of bias, and there is an opportunity to cross-examine during the current trial, any statements made at a previous trial/hearing and which are consistent with the testimony at the present trial are admissible, not hearsay. A party may impeach a witness by introducing those of his prior statements that are inconsistent with his current testimony at trial. In
1960-572: The rules governing impeachment in US federal courts . Under the common law of England , a party could not impeach its own witness unless one of four special circumstances was met. The Voucher Rule required the proponent of the witness to "vouch" for the truthfulness of the witness. Here are the special circumstances: The rule has been eliminated in many jurisdictions. Under the US Federal Rules of Evidence , Rule 607 permits any party to attack
2009-472: The speaker is unbiased). We can also rationally accept a claim on the basis of another person's testimony unless at least one of the following is found to be true: Witness impeachment Witness impeachment , in the law of evidence of the United States , is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual testifying in a trial . The Federal Rules of Evidence contain
Testimony (disambiguation) - Misplaced Pages Continue
2058-420: The testimony of expert witnesses is regarded as supportive of evidence rather than evidence in and of itself, and a good defense attorney will point out that the expert witness is not in fact a witness to anything, but rather an observer. When a witness is asked a question, the opposing attorney can raise an objection , which is a legal move to disallow or prevent an improper question to others, preferably before
2107-437: The witness answers, and mentioning one of the standard reasons, including: There may also be an objection to the answer, including: Up until the mid-20th century, in much of the United States , an attorney often had to follow an objection with an exception to preserve the issue for appeal. If an attorney failed to "take an exception" immediately after the court's ruling on the objection, he waived his client's right to appeal
2156-402: The witness will depend on whether the witness is the defendant or not. If the witness is defendant, the burden is on the prosecution to show that the probative value of the impeachment (demonstrating the defendant witness's propensity to lie) outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant. The probative value must merely outweigh unfair prejudice. If the witness is a person other than
2205-509: The witness's credibility. The theory is that when a witness can be contradicted, it should be taken into account in determining the reliability of the witness so the jury is instructed by the judge not to use the impeachment evidence as proof of any facts but only to consider whether the witness in question should be believed. All experienced courtroom observers, however, agree that jurors will have great difficulty understanding that distinction, known as "limited admissibility" or "admissibility for
2254-405: The witness. The witness is induced to contradict their own testimony during the present proceeding. That differs from inconsistent statements above. Inconsistent statements involve statements made out-of-court ( hearsay ) or in prior proceedings. Contradiction involves the witness saying two different things in the same testimony. Another form of impeachment by contradiction has a subtle effect on
2303-445: The witness. So, for example, if a witness testifies that he remembers seeing a person at 2:00 pm on a Tuesday and his habit is to be at his desk job on Tuesday, then the opposing party would try to impeach his testimony related to that event. Testimony is given by those invited or compelled to speak at, or submit a written statement to, legislative hearings such as United States congressional hearings . Testimony may also be given to
2352-462: The witness. That is, if the opponent impeached via bias, rehabilitation is limited to negating the claim of bias. If the opponent brought in a rebuttal witness who testified to the character of principal witness as that of a liar, rehabilitation is limited to a character witness who testifies principal witness is a truthful person. That is a different consideration from the ever-present right to cross-examine any witness, including character witnesses. If
2401-428: The word testimony refers not to the underlying belief, but the committed action which arises out of their beliefs, which testifies to their beliefs. Common areas in which modern Friends are said to testify include testimony towards peace , testimony to simplicity , testimony to truth and integrity , and testimony to equality . In some religions (most notably Mormonism and Islam ) many adherents testify as
#360639