Witness

Heinrich Buscher as a witness during the Nuremberg Trials

In a court proceeding, a witness may be called (requested to testify) by either the prosecution or the defense. The side that calls the witness first asks questions in what is called direct examination. The opposing side then may ask their own questions in what is called cross-examination. In some cases, redirect examination may be used by the side that called the witness but usually only to contradict specific testimony from the cross-examination.

Recalling a witness means calling a witness, who has already given testimony in a proceeding, to give further testimony. A court may give leave to a party to recall a witness only to give evidence about a matter adduced by another party if the second party's testimony contradicts evidence given by the original witness on direct examination.

Witnesses are usually permitted to testify only what they experienced first-hand. In most cases, they may not testify about something they were told (hearsay). That restriction does not apply to expert witnesses, but they may testify only in the area of their expertise.

Eyewitness testimony is generally presumed to be more reliable than circumstantial evidence. Studies have shown, however, that individual, separate witness testimony is often flawed[4], and parts of it can be meaningless. That can occur because of flaws in eyewitness identification (such as faulty observation and recollection, or bias) or because a witness is lying. If several people witness a crime, it is probative to look for similarities in their collective descriptions to substantiate the facts of an event but to keep in mind the contrasts between individual descriptions. Witness identification can always help detectives get a general idea of what the criminal looks like, but they should never revolve the case around that because it can be very misleading[5]. The psychology of eyewitness identification can really convince someone that they were being attacked by one person, but in reality, DNA evidence shows it’s a completely different person[6].

One study involved an experiment, in which subjects acted as jurors in a criminal case. Jurors heard a description of a robbery-murder, a prosecution argument, and then an argument for the defense. Some jurors heard only circumstantial evidence; others heard from a clerk who claimed to identify the defendant. In the former case, 18% percent found the defendant guilty, but in the latter case, 72% found the defendant guilty (Loftus 1988).[7]

Police lineups in which the eyewitness picks out a suspect from a group of people in the police station are often grossly suggestive, and they give the false impression that the witness remembered the suspect. In another study, students watched a staged crime. An hour later they looked through photos. A week later they were asked to pick the suspect out of lineups. 8% of the people in the lineups were mistakenly identified as criminals. 20% of the innocent people whose photographs were included were mistakenly identified.[8]

Weapon focus effects in which the presence of a weapon impairs memory for surrounding details is also an issue.

Another study looked at 65 cases of "erroneous criminal convictions of innocent people." In 45% of the cases, eyewitness mistakes were responsible.[9]

The formal study of eyewitness memory is usually undertaken within the broader category of cognitive processes, the different ways in which we make sense of the world around us. That is done by employing the mental skills at one's disposal like thinking, perception, memory, awareness, reasoning, and judgment. Although cognitive processes can be only inferred and cannot be seen directly, they all have very important practical implications within a legal context.

If one were to accept that the way people think, perceive, reason, and judge is not always perfect, it becomes easier to understand why cognitive processes and the factors influencing the processes are studied by psychologists in matters of law, one being the grave implications that this imperfection can have within the criminal justice system.

The study of witness memory has dominated the realm of investigation. As Huff and Rattner[10] note, the single most important factor contributing to wrongful conviction is eyewitness misidentification.[11]

A credible witness is a person who acts as a witness, including through giving testimony in court, whose testimony is perceived as truthful and believable.[12][13] Other witnesses may be perceived as less credible, or to have no credibility.[14] Assessment of credibility is made of each witness, and is not affected by the number of witnesses who testify.[15] Several factors affect witnesses' credibility. Generally, witnesses are perceived as more credible when they are perceived as more accurate and less suggestible.[16][17]

At common law, the term could be used in relation to the giving of testimony, or for the witnessing of documents.[18] In modern English law, a credible witness is one who is not "speaking from hearsay."[19] In Scottish law, a credible witness is one "whose credibility commends itself to the presiding magistrate ... the trustworthiness" of whom is good.[19]

Credible witnesses must be used to give meaning or existence to certain types of legal documents. For example, in most common law jurisdictions, at least two witnesses must sign their names to a will in order to verify that it was executed by the testator. In Canadian law, a credible witness to a Will means a witness who is not incapacitated by mental deficiency, conflict of interest, or crime.[19]

• Courthouse facility dog or courthouse dog
• Eyewitness (disambiguation)
• Eyewitness identification
• Eyewitness memory
• Informant
• Martyr (a word which originally meant witness)
• Material witness
• United States Marshals Service
• Witness protection

• Garraghan, Gilbert J. (1946). A Guide to Historical Method. New York: Fordham University Press. ISBN 0-8371-7132-6.
• Gottschalk, Louis (1950). Understanding History: A Primer of Historical Method. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 0-394-30215-X.
• Johnson, M. K. (2001). False Memories, Psychology of. IN: Smelser, N. J. & Baltes, P. B. (eds.) International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier. (pp. 5254–5259).
• Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In: Lakatos, I. & Musgrave, A. E. (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press: 59-89.
• Loftus, Elizabeth F. (1996). Eyewitness Testimony. Revised edition. Cambridge, MA: Harward University Press. (Original edition: 1979).
• Read, J. D. (2001). Eyewitness Memory: Psychological Aspects. IN: Smelser, N. J. & Baltes, P. B. (eds.) International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier. (pp. 5217–5221).
• Roediger III, H. L. (2001). Reconstructive Memory, Psychology of. IN: Smelser, N. J. & Baltes, P. B. (eds.) International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 12844-12849.
• Ross D F, Read J D, Toglia M P (1994) Adult Eyewitness Testimony: Current Trends and Developments. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Shepherd J W, Ellis H D, Davies G M (1982). Identification Evidence: A Psychological Evaluation. Aberdeen University Press, Aberdeen, UK
• Thompson C P, Herrmann D, Read J D, Bruce D, Payne D G, Toglia, M P (1998). Eyewitness Memory: Theoretical and Applied Perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wikiquote has quotations related to Witnesses.

• Eyewitness memory
• Child Witness Project
• Victims and witnesses of crime (Directgov, England and Wales)