22

Hypothetical: A witness took an oath to tell the whole truth. The adversarial cross-examiner abruptly cuts off the witness's testimony in the middle of a statement, leaving the train of thought incomplete and possibly leading to a misunderstanding by the jury.

The witness wishes to finish that statement and more. Their objective is to fulfill the "whole truth" portion of their oath. What can the witness do during trial to fix this situation?

Can they appeal to the jury? Raise an objection? Or is the witness at the mercy of the (either side's) lawyers' whims? Does the witness have a right to finish their statement even though the cross-examiner has cut them off?

Community
  • 1
Mindwin Remember Monica
  • 2,643
  • 1
  • 17
  • 24

3 Answers3

28

"The whole truth" is part of a formulaic phrase which has been operationalized to mean merely "don't commit perjury."

A witness simply answers the questions asked and is not permitted to go further.

The witness is at the mercy of the lawyer's whims. The witness does not have a right to testify beyond the scope of the question asked.

It is improper for a lawyer to cut off a witness when in the middle of providing an answer to the question asked, but those points are for the other side's lawyer and the judge to raise, not the witness.

If the answer of a witness to the question asked on cross-examination leaves a false impression, it is up to the other side's lawyer to correct that by asking additional redirect examination questions of the witness in our adversary system.

Asking questions that when answered truthfully leave a false impression because the answer presents an incomplete version of the whole story is standard practice in lawyering. This tactic is less effective, however, in jurisdictions like Colorado where judges and juries can also ask their own questions of witnesses once the lawyers are finished asking their questions.

ohwilleke
  • 257,510
  • 16
  • 506
  • 896
12

The defendant in Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 told a partial truth but not the whole truth, and got away with it. The crucial feature of his testimony is that he only answered part of the question asked, and it was the duty of the opposing lawyer to detect the discrepancy. This gave rise to the "literal truth" standard, which has then been clarified in various ruling such as US v. De Zarn which focus on the entire context of testimony, not just on the absolute truth value of an isolated sentence.

The problem with the concept "the whole truth" is that it is impossible to testify to everything that you know to be true, you can only testify to that which you know to be true and relevant. The form of the question can dictate what is relevant, for example if the question asks "did you see Smith on the night of June 30", then not mentioning anything about June 29 or the morning of June 30 would not be "failing to tell the whole truth", and it would not be perjury if you answered "No" even when you say Smith on the morning of June 30. If the question was more broadly "Have you ever seen Smith", then in those circumstances, "No" would be perjury. In other worth, you are entitled to assume a certain scope of relevance, if not clearly contradicted by the whole of the testimony (which is why you need a lawyer to watch out for your interests).

If, ill-advisedly, you say "No." intending to continue "Well, actually, yes, I did see him on the morning of the 30th", you might get dismissed by the attorney. Before you leave the stand, you can address the court and ask permission to correct your testimony.

user6726
  • 217,973
  • 11
  • 354
  • 589
9

Court contains two parties. You look dead square at the other counsel and go "HELP!" in whatever way you can signal that.

They write a note.

At appropriate time, they say "Redirect, your honor".

"Go ahead."

And then they ask you to finish your thought.

But no, other than that you don't get to tamper with the court's flow in real time. If you don't feel the story has been told to your satisfaction, you can talk to the friendly counsel off-line and tell them what was missed, and they can recall you to the witness stand.

I suppose in some circumstances, you could file an amicus brief, which is how a 3rd party injects legal input into a proceeding.

Harper - Reinstate Monica
  • 20,495
  • 2
  • 30
  • 88