What if the witness provides contradictory statements in a court proceeding?

What happens when a witness contradicts himself in a court proceeding depends on the context and circumstances surrounding the statements that were made. Court proceedings often take place over a long time, during which period a witness’ memory or perception of events may change. Consequently, out of court statements made by a witness that differ from his court testimony can be used to undermine the opposing party’s case. For example, if the witness said at the scene that the cat that caused the accident was gray, but in court said it was black, his differing descriptions can be used to argue that he really did not know the color of the cat.

Contradictory Witness Statements and Perjury

During the various proceedings that make up a court case, such as depositions, preliminary hearings and the trial itself, witnesses often testify under oath. A witness’ testimony can and often does vary from hearing to hearing, potentially opening him up to perjury charges. However, a witness is generally not charged with perjury, the willful and intentional act of making false statements under oath, unless not to do so would be a miscarriage of justice. A policy of prosecuting witnesses for perjury based on the contradictory statements they made under oath could potentially inhibit future witnesses from willingly coming to court to testify.

The contradictory statements a witness makes may also implicate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, since lying under oath is itself a crime. When it becomes apparent to a judge that the witness is about to implicate his Fifth Amendment rights, the testimony is often halted to give the witness time to consult with an attorney. On the other hand, these statements are not considered perjury unless they would materially affect the outcome of the case. For example, lying under oath that you do not wear glasses could be considered perjury when you are testifying about what you have seen. However, it would not be perjury if your witness statement was about what you have heard and not seen.

If you have further questions about witness statements or perjury, do not hesitate to contact a criminal attorney.

Case Studies: Contradictory Witness Statements in Court Proceedings

Case Study 1: The Color of the Robbery Suspect’s Clothing

In a high-profile robbery case, multiple witnesses provided statements to the police describing the suspect’s clothing. However, during the trial, one of the key witnesses testified that the suspect was wearing a red hoodie during the crime.

This contradicted the initial police report and the statements given by other witnesses, who consistently described the suspect as wearing a black jacket. The contradictory statement raised doubts about the witness’s reliability and memory, leading to a potential weakening of the prosecution’s case.

Case Study 2: Inconsistencies in a Sexual Assault Trial

In a sexual assault trial, the victim’s testimony played a crucial role in determining the defendant’s guilt. However, during cross-examination, the defense attorney presented the victim with previous statements she made to the police that differed from her current testimony.

The victim had initially described the incident occurring in the evening, but during the trial, she testified that it happened in the morning. The inconsistencies in the victim’s statements raised questions about the accuracy of her recollection and damaged the credibility of her testimony, creating reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors.

Case Study 3: Conflicting Accounts of a Traffic Accident

In a civil lawsuit following a car accident, two witnesses provided conflicting accounts of the events leading up to the collision. One witness claimed that the defendant ran a red light and caused the accident, while another witness testified that it was the plaintiff who disregarded the traffic signal.

The contradictory statements from the witnesses created a situation where the jury had to evaluate the credibility and reliability of each witness. The case highlighted the challenges of determining the truth in situations where witnesses’ perceptions and memories of an incident may vary.