CHAP. 6 COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES P. JANICKE 2009

Chap. 6: Witness Competency2 MODERN VIEW NEARLY EVERYONE IS COMPETENT NEED SUFFICIENT ABILITY TO BE HELPFUL: –TO OBSERVE –TO REMEMBER –TO RELATE

2009Chap. 6: Witness Competency3 COUNTERWEIGHTS AGAIN NOMINALLY COMPETENT TESTIMONY CAN BE KEPT OUT IF UNFAIRLY PREJUDICIAL, OR CONFUSING TO THE JURY, per RULE 403 THIS IS OFTEN DONE RATHER THAN HOLDING THAT WIT. IS PER SE INCOMPETENT

2009Chap. 6: Witness Competency4 OATH REQUIREMENT HAS CHANGED OVER THE CENTURIES “GOD” NO LONGER NEED BE MENTIONED “SWEARING” NO LONGER NEED BE MENTIONED SOME EXPRESSION OF DUTY AND COMMITMENT TO TELL THE TRUTH IS REQUIRED

2009Chap. 6: Witness Competency5 SUBMISSION TO CROSS- EXAM IS REQUIRED WITNESS WHO REFUSES IN ADVANCE – WILL BE RULED INCOMPETENT IF THE ADVERSE PARTY SO MOVES –WILL BE HELD IN CONTEMPT IF THE SUMMONING PARTY SO MOVES WITNESS WHO REFUSES AFTER DIRECT –WILL BE IN CONTEMPT –WILL HAVE HIS DIRECT STRICKEN

2009Chap. 6: Witness Competency6 HYPNOTIZED WITNESSES A CURRENTLY HYPNOTIZED WITNESS IS NOT COMPETENT –WHY ?? COURTS ARE WARY EVEN OF HYPNOTIC REFRESHMENT OF MEMORY HYPNOTICALLY REFRESHED WITNESS FOR D. CAN’T BE SUMMARILY KEPT OUT

2009Chap. 6: Witness Competency7 “DEAD MAN’S” STATUTES COMMON LAW: ALL WITNESSES WERE INCOMPETENT TO TESTIFY TO A CONVERSATION WITH A NOW- DECEASED PERSON, EVEN IF THE HEARSAY OBJECTION IS SOMEHOW OVERCOME WAS THOUGHT UNFAIR, OR TEMPTING TO PERJURY

2009Chap. 6: Witness Competency8 MOST STATES HAVE SOME VESTIGE OF THE RULE LEFT TEXAS: –IF AN ESTATE IS A PARTY, NO PARTY CAN TESTIFY TO A CONVERSATION WITH DECEASED –UNLESS “CORROBORATED” OR ELICITED BY OTHER SIDE [R. 601(b)] –SAME RULE FOR GUARDIAN/WARD

2009Chap. 6: Witness Competency9 THE HEARSAY RULE STILL NEEDS TO BE DEALT WITH, OR THE CONVERSATION WILL BE KEPT OUT ON THAT GROUND WE HAVE A FEW HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS THAT MIGHT APPLY HERE – – EXCITED UTTERANCES –STATEMENTS ABOUT WILLS MORE LATER

2009Chap. 6: Witness Competency10 LAWYER AS WITNESS NO INCOMPETENCY RULE, BUT: AN ETHICS RULE (NOT EVIDENCE RULE) PROHIBITS AN ADVOCATING LAWYER FROM TESTIFYING GENERALLY –IS THOUGHT TO GIVE HER TOO MUCH ADVANTAGE –SHE CAN TESTIFY ON UNCONTESTED POINTS –TO BE A GENERAL WITNESS, MUST WITHDRAW AS SPEAKING ADVOCATE; NOT DISQUALIFIED FROM THE CASE THOUGH –EXEMPTION FOR HARDSHIP TO CLIENT

2009Chap. 6: Witness Competency11 JURORS AS WITNESSES: RULE 606 RULE COVERS LIVE TESTIMONY RULE COVERS AFFIDAVIT TESTIMONY NEITHER IS RESTRICTED PRE- VERDICT USUALLY HANDLED IN CAMERA

2009Chap. 6: Witness Competency12 JURORS AS WITNESSES: POST-VERDICT HEAVY RESTRICTIONS IN FEDERAL RULE 606 ONLY WHERE TESTIMONY IS TO: –OUTSIDE INFLUENCE (BY PERSONS; e.g., THREATS, BRIBES) –EXTRANEOUS PREJUDICIAL INFO (e.g., NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS) –MISTAKE IN ENTERING VERDICT ONTO FORM

2009Chap. 6: Witness Competency13 EVEN WHERE ALLOWED, POST- VERDICT TESTIMONY CAN’T GET INTO IMPACT ON ANY JUROR’S MIND, OR INTO THE JURY’S DISCUSSIONS THE JUDGE HAS TO SPECULATE

2009Chap. 6: Witness Competency14 JURORS AS WITNESSES: TEXAS RULE 606 NARROWER THAN FED. RULE TESTIMONY CAN BE ONLY TO “OUTSIDE INFLUENCES” –PROBABLY SUBSUMES THE REDUNDANT “EXTRANEOUS PREJUDICIAL INFO” OPTION IN THE FEDERAL RULE BUT: NO EXCEPTION FOR ERRORS IN VERDICT FORMS

2009Chap. 6: Witness Competency15 OTHER POSSIBLE AVENUES UNDER TEXAS RULES: –IF # ON FORM IS TOO HIGH, MOVE FOR NEW TRIAL: EV. WON’T SUPPORT THE VERDICT AS IF APPEARS ON THE FORM –MOVE FOR JMOL – NO REASONABLE JURY COULD SAY THIS MOST CASES: SEEM UNFIXABLE

2009Chap. 6: Witness Competency16 AID FOR RECALLING THE RULE PICTURE A CIRCLE AROUND THE JURORS DURING AND AFTER TRIAL EVIDENCE OF THINGS COMING FROM OUTSIDE INTO THE CIRCLE IS O.K. EVIDENCE OF WHAT TRANSPIRED INSIDE THE CIRCLE IS NOT ALLOWED AFTER VERDICT

2009Chap. 6: Witness Competency17 EXAMPLE 1: JUROR SLEPT THROUGH TRIAL; ANOTHER WAS DRUNK THROUGHOUT TRIAL POST-VERDICT TESTIMONY BY A 3 RD JUROR NOT ALLOWED ON EITHER FED. AND TEXAS RULES THE SAME

2009Chap. 6: Witness Competency18 EXAMPLE 2: JUROR X TOLD OTHERS ABOUT HIS SPECIAL EXPERIENCE IN CRIME DETECTION; SEVERAL THEN CHANGED THEIR VOTES A JUROR CANNOT TESTIFY POST-VERDICT TO THIS AN INTERNAL MISCONDUCT MATTER; NOT “EXTRANEOUS” OR “OUTSIDE”)

2009Chap. 6: Witness Competency19 EXAMPLE 3: JUROR WENT TO SCENE AT NIGHT; TOLD OTHER JURORS WHAT HE SAW IF THIS COMES UP POST- VERDICT: –A CLOSE QUESTION –1ST HALF IS ADMISSIBLE: “EXTRANEOUS” MATTER GETTING INTO THE CIRCLE –2ND HALF IS PROBABLY INADMISSIBLE INTRUSION INTO THE CIRCLE

2009Chap. 6: Witness Competency20 “PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE” REQUIREMENT OF RULE 602 WHAT DOES IT MEAN? –OBSERVED BY THE SENSES –NOT “PROCESSED” TOO MUCH WHAT DOES IT EXCLUDE? –RECITATIONS LABELED “OPINION” –TEST. TO STATE OF MIND OR EMOTION OF ANOTHER PERSON