Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Inconsistent Witness Statments
9 Answers
Good morning everyone,
A person is accused of kneeing the victim in the UPPER RIGHT Leg during an argument which has caused a small bruise. The victim says that the incident took place right next to a certain landmark (a post box), but the argument then continued further down the road. The arguing happened for about three minutes, but then simmered down to a 'chatting' level. The victim and defendant left the area and went their separate ways in a calmly manner. All witnesses left with the victim.
There are four witnesses.
Witness 1 says that he saw the defendant kneeing the victim in the LEFT leg and says that it was further down the road and not by the post box. He also says that the defendant spat at the victim. (the victim does not mention this)
Witness 2 says that he was told by the victim that he had been kneed during the argument and mentioned this an hour after the incident, but the witness did not see any injury on the victim. He also says that during the same conversation after the incident, the victim repeatedly said that he "Hates" the defendant.
Witnesses 3 & 4 say that they witnessed the argument, but didn't see any violence and didn't think that the argument was vicious.
The defendant admits that they were arguing but denies kneeing the victim. He says that during the the argument, he patted the back of the victim a few times to calm him down as they were all slowly walking.
The defendant has been charged with battery.
Please dissect this at will!
Thanks.
A person is accused of kneeing the victim in the UPPER RIGHT Leg during an argument which has caused a small bruise. The victim says that the incident took place right next to a certain landmark (a post box), but the argument then continued further down the road. The arguing happened for about three minutes, but then simmered down to a 'chatting' level. The victim and defendant left the area and went their separate ways in a calmly manner. All witnesses left with the victim.
There are four witnesses.
Witness 1 says that he saw the defendant kneeing the victim in the LEFT leg and says that it was further down the road and not by the post box. He also says that the defendant spat at the victim. (the victim does not mention this)
Witness 2 says that he was told by the victim that he had been kneed during the argument and mentioned this an hour after the incident, but the witness did not see any injury on the victim. He also says that during the same conversation after the incident, the victim repeatedly said that he "Hates" the defendant.
Witnesses 3 & 4 say that they witnessed the argument, but didn't see any violence and didn't think that the argument was vicious.
The defendant admits that they were arguing but denies kneeing the victim. He says that during the the argument, he patted the back of the victim a few times to calm him down as they were all slowly walking.
The defendant has been charged with battery.
Please dissect this at will!
Thanks.
Answers
1 to 9 of 9
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Tommy_Thumby. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
What is there to dissect? Different people remember things differently. That is natural. It would be very surprising if witnesses remembered everything in exactly the same terms, and it would be a bit suspicious, suggesting collusion, if they did. The problem that the defence has that the same witnesses remember the most significant thing, though they disagree on the rest. So they saw a man stabbed, but they differ as to where he was hit on the body, or whereabouts in the area he was, or what clothing he was wearing, and so on. That doesn't help much; he is charged with stabbing, not wearing a blue (or was it black?) shirt !
Could be stronger, but there is quite enough for the prosecution to get home on that evidence.
As in all cases, what matters is how the witnesses seem when giving evidence. They may appear totally shifty and dishonest. They may appear perfectly straightforward and honest. Who knows ? The same applies to defendants when they give evidence.
As in all cases, what matters is how the witnesses seem when giving evidence. They may appear totally shifty and dishonest. They may appear perfectly straightforward and honest. Who knows ? The same applies to defendants when they give evidence.
Tarmy - Freddie is what us plebs call Counsel - previously people paid (and perhaps still do -pay ) mucho mucho money for his opinion. and You get it free !
T, I think in the vein of Perry Mason you think that if the case is that X was kneed in Lower St and you show he walked on Upper St. the whole case goes phut ! and the prosecution says: OK I give up
they dont
so it all depends on what happens on the day.
Be sure - if you are that Person, T, then get a lawyer for the day in court.
Lord Eldon - 1810 I think said: if a person says he was in Rome and it is shown that he wasnt, all it shows is....[ he wasnt in Rome and nothing else]
he was referring to the rest of the facts are not disproved because one is. Still there is this stuff called 'credibility' and if the witness makes mistake after mistake, then obviously after a time, the whole lot tends not to be believed.
Your day in court will be quite an eye-opener and the important thing is that you learn, next time Walk Away ! or Walk in the Opposite Direction
that would be before you've kneed him and not after (sorry - joke)
T, I think in the vein of Perry Mason you think that if the case is that X was kneed in Lower St and you show he walked on Upper St. the whole case goes phut ! and the prosecution says: OK I give up
they dont
so it all depends on what happens on the day.
Be sure - if you are that Person, T, then get a lawyer for the day in court.
Lord Eldon - 1810 I think said: if a person says he was in Rome and it is shown that he wasnt, all it shows is....[ he wasnt in Rome and nothing else]
he was referring to the rest of the facts are not disproved because one is. Still there is this stuff called 'credibility' and if the witness makes mistake after mistake, then obviously after a time, the whole lot tends not to be believed.
Your day in court will be quite an eye-opener and the important thing is that you learn, next time Walk Away ! or Walk in the Opposite Direction
that would be before you've kneed him and not after (sorry - joke)
Since your course expects you to examine evidence, you might consider the admissibility of the apparent hearsay in witness 2's account. I'd be inclined to let it in, because a jury won't rely on it as proof that the man was kneed but only as evidence that, an hour later, he was claiming that he was, and that's all he said, and that prompted the witness to do something. If he didn't do anything, such evidence is of no value and can be excluded.
That the victim said he hates the defendant is of value to the defence. It may show malice and a motive to invent or exaggerate events. It may only mean that he " hates" the defendant because he has just been kneed by him, and is angry enough to use hyperbole in describing his emotion, but it is an area for careful cross-examination
That the victim said he hates the defendant is of value to the defence. It may show malice and a motive to invent or exaggerate events. It may only mean that he " hates" the defendant because he has just been kneed by him, and is angry enough to use hyperbole in describing his emotion, but it is an area for careful cross-examination
Thanks Fred. This is all good stuff. I picked up on the victim saying that he "hates" the the defendant too.
Perhaps I have been reading too much into the case study, but I feel there could be a valid argument in the victim either bruising himself, or using a fresh bruise from daily knocks & bangs to incriminate the person he hates (defendant). In addition, I would closely scrutinise witness #1 in an attempt to expose any possible collusion.
We were not given timescales of when each statement was taken from the date of the incident, but surely the timescale is quite relevant? Thanks!
Perhaps I have been reading too much into the case study, but I feel there could be a valid argument in the victim either bruising himself, or using a fresh bruise from daily knocks & bangs to incriminate the person he hates (defendant). In addition, I would closely scrutinise witness #1 in an attempt to expose any possible collusion.
We were not given timescales of when each statement was taken from the date of the incident, but surely the timescale is quite relevant? Thanks!
Timescales? Not really. The witness statements you see which are prepared for trial are seldom what a lawyer would call a contemporaneous record, taken within minutes! They are often a week or more after the event. Witnesses leave the scene and are found and contacted sometimes weeks later and so it depends what time it takes to see each one and get a statement.
The defence is that the person was never assaulted in the way claimed or at all. On the face of it , the only evidence of injury is the complainant saying there was, which doesn't do any harm to the defence at all. All that proves is that the person is saying it. You have to attack the allegation of kneeing, pointing out such inconsistencies as you can when you are defending, no matter how they could be explained by human fallibility or anything else. You play up how perfectly the witness was watching and his certainty in his version, and then rubbish it, because it differs from the other versions, and the other way about with the next witness. Witnesses get supremely confident about what they saw, and you encourage them in that so the contrast between versions sounds much more damaging than it ought really to be, when you point it out.
The defence is that the person was never assaulted in the way claimed or at all. On the face of it , the only evidence of injury is the complainant saying there was, which doesn't do any harm to the defence at all. All that proves is that the person is saying it. You have to attack the allegation of kneeing, pointing out such inconsistencies as you can when you are defending, no matter how they could be explained by human fallibility or anything else. You play up how perfectly the witness was watching and his certainty in his version, and then rubbish it, because it differs from the other versions, and the other way about with the next witness. Witnesses get supremely confident about what they saw, and you encourage them in that so the contrast between versions sounds much more damaging than it ought really to be, when you point it out.
1 to 9 of 9
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.