I actually did say "No". I have a seizure disorder, and following a seizure my memories are absent, or hazy, or confused, and can be entirely false. I was being asked to testify regarding something that happened in front of me about half an hour after regaining consciousness from a seizure. The judge asked if I had an issue with the oath. I replied that I cannot swear that anything I think I remember is accurate, or even happened at all. I then handed him a statement from my neurologist, which I had already provided to the prosecutor when first told I would have to testify. The judge thanked me for coming and excused me.
@ep5acg
2 жыл бұрын
You bring up a very nice point here. The purpose of the oath is in part for immediately establishing the nature of the relationship between the witness and the court, and to bring conflicts of interest out before getting started.
@JWSmythe
2 жыл бұрын
My step son had a seizure disorder, and he described the post-seizure time just like you did. He didn't necessarily know what was happening around him. One time (his first seizure that we witnessed), we were driving, hit traffic, and found a cop. He called for an ambulance, and a firetruck showed up to block traffic for no good reason. The ambulance transported him to the hospital. He only had a vague recollection of maybe some flashing lights, and waking up in the hospital. The time from the seizure to waking up in the hospital was maybe 30 to 45 minutes. The same with other seizures, but once we knew what was happening, we could just take care of him wherever we were. He just didn't know how he moved from where the seizure happened, to his bed, and why we were sitting with him.
@martinhorner642
2 жыл бұрын
Always an exception =D
@markm3.16
2 жыл бұрын
Not having the ability to testify accurately could cause a jury to believe and/or convict an innocent person.
@abundance5767
2 жыл бұрын
@Mark M Which happens every day.
@samuelmcglohon6861
4 ай бұрын
Facinating thing is the only people required to tell the truth is the public. The state is in fact allowed to lie and withhold in many many circumstances. Lived it. Even the bailiff.
@mrj3711
3 ай бұрын
Any rights you think you have the gooberment has a loophole that says you don't.
@JerShaffer
3 ай бұрын
Balliff will do whatever there told no matter how heinous.. they would probably off someone in court if they were told to
@-yeme-
2 ай бұрын
you can lie all you like when you're not under oath. tell people you're an astronaut. a chess grandmaster. say you won an olympic gold in table tennis and the heavyweight championship of the world in the same year and no one can do a thing about it, except laugh at you. likewise, when a politician is put under oath in a courtroom or certain government hearings they are under the same obligation, but when they're not under oath we can expect the usual torrent of lies.
@dakota9821
2 ай бұрын
@@-yeme- They might be technically under the same oath but the difference is the average joe actually gets in trouble for it, the government actors don't. Nice try kid.
@PtolemyJones
2 жыл бұрын
What bothers me is that a witness swears to tell the whole truth, but lawyers often seem to trim your reply to meet their needs, which seems to require a violation of the oath. They aren't letting me tell the whole truth.
@razony
Жыл бұрын
That is a really good point. That would be a good defense in not answering a certain question because it would not allow me to tell the whole truth.
@kitanul788
Жыл бұрын
@@razony in the early 90's i was subpoenaed to court as a witness. The prosecutor asked me 2 questions and when i started to give my detailed answer, he kept on saying "Yes or No". On the 3rd question, he did the same thing to me when i attempted to expound on the answer. I turned to the judge and said "Your Honor, a few minutes ago I promised to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and this gentleman isn't allowing me to" The judge paused for a few seconds and told me to give my full response. The prosecutor ended his line of questions and had the most confused look on his face!
@razony
Жыл бұрын
@@kitanul788 Love it.
@kravvormagagor9595
Жыл бұрын
That's why cross examination is a standard in every courtroom. If the district attorney just wants the yes no answers, The defense attorney is able to give you the time to elaborate by asking more open-ended questions. Either sides job is to make a point that resonates and sways The thinking of the jury, or whatever entity is making judgment. You're being asked short poignant yes no questions intentionally, so that the pacing can allow for someone to logically follow The idea that the counselor is putting forth. It's literally what makes their job doable. Have you ever listened to a story from someone (that could be either gender will say) where every new detail of a story has its own backstory that requires elaboration away from the main narrative. You do that just a couple times and people lose their desire and even sometimes ability to continue following the main narrative. When you know all the ins and outs that part actually makes a lot of sense. There are a lot of ways to get screwed in the courtroom but that's typically not one of them. Unless your testimony is something neither side wants to hear in it's entirety , which im guessing happens once in a while. Even still, your story can be heard you just have to find the right audience. If you're trying to bring to light a crime that is not the one on trial, should be talking to some law enforcement entity, not the courts, yet.
@kitanul788
Жыл бұрын
@@kravvormagagor9595 of course, but if you can thwart the narrative that the opposing council is attempting to project, all the better
@parkrthington1902
Жыл бұрын
Swear..."BUT I CAN'T ACCURATELY...recall the events." Instant nullified testimony.
@tomtrombley2402
4 ай бұрын
I was deposed recently. When asked this question, I gave a qualified answer that wasn’t a direct yes, but qualified that to the best of my ability given that memories have been proven to be malleable, I might phrase something poorly or inadvertently say the wrong thing, and a couple of other qualifiers based on technicalities that I have seen get people perjured. The recorder was directed to say that I had responded with “yes”. I felt like they had perjured my perjury statement.
@valentthor2655
2 жыл бұрын
Stranger than fiction true story ! My brother, 17 at the time gets a ticket for having a car on the road with no insurance that was parked on the road in front of dad's house. The cop was driving by , ran the plate, an came a knocking, an gave my brother the traffic ticket after school when he got home. However before he was given this ticket the cop took him for a little ride around the block asking him to rat out where the bush partying is going on an possibly who's selling weed, an he can make this traffic ticket disappear if he becomes his informant. Brother laughed an said fuck no, see you in court ! Court day came an my brother never bothered to show, but my dad did as he was subpoenaed, an the crowns attorney told the judge the accused has not in court today, but his father is. Judge called out dad's name, asked him , " well sir what do you have to say for your son" The priceless reply 👌 ( dad ) sorry judge, I'm confused, pushing his glasses up the bridge of his nose, reaching into his pocket, pulling out the subpoena, taking his time in doing so an unfolds it , looking at it for a minute ( that's a long time to keep a judge waiting) an finally said , " the crowns asked me here today an I'm assuming as a witness ((FOR)) the Crown, an now you asked what do I have to say ((FOR )) him ? I'm confused, ca you please clarify my role here today please " Lol, why's your son not in court today asked the judge. Dad said your guess is as good as mine, but probably he didn't have the $450 for the fine he's not guilty of. Judge asks what do mean by that , not guilty, is the car his ? Yes of course it's his, but the ticket implied he parked it on the street, ad in drove it out of the driveway an parked it out front of the house, an nobody's going to testify here today to seeing him drive without insurance, as the ticket under section ???? Says , so the fact is I got sick of the kid rebuilding the engine in my driveway, blocking my access to My garage, an I pushed it out on the road , when the cop saw the car he, knows it doesn't run, an then tried to blackmail my son to Rat our his friends, assuming they party, with illegal booze an illegal drugs , an car in question the 68 Mustan fastback has plates an insurance, transferred from his other vehicle , so what the hell is going on here judge? , judge called the crowns lawyer an the cop to the bench, after this little meeting, the judge dismissed the charges an the case against my brother, told my dad he's free to leave now thanks coming today, your sons lucky to have a dad like you,. Dad - not so fast your honorable justice, I'm going to need copies of today's transcripts, names an contact numbers of everyone in this room right now so I can subpoena them for my lawsuit. This time the judge was pushing his glasses up the bridge of his nose, an replied, you can pick it up from the courts clerk office in a week or so, an said GOOD LUCK! Dad ( the ol pitbull) ended up with 25k, 4 years later, once he bites he never let's go lol cop got fired, judge was transferred out of town 👍
@TheBerkeleyBeauty
2 жыл бұрын
This is a great story. I wish it NEVER paid to fuck with people for no reason.
@stackingpoints417
2 жыл бұрын
We need more stories like this
@spambot7110
2 жыл бұрын
ok i believed it right up to the part about a cop actually getting fired
@stevepettersen3283
2 жыл бұрын
an vs. and.
@xezqeznunya6671
2 жыл бұрын
@@spambot7110 cops get fired every day why is that part unbelievable?
@RacerX888
2 жыл бұрын
I said "NO" after being asked if I could answer "yes or no" to the following questions. I said, no, I would not do that, and that I would answer any question the way I felt necessary to make my point and would not allow the attorney to determine any part of my answer. There was a long pause after that before the trial continued and I did not do as the attorney requested. Never allow them to determine your answer.
@mitsulang
2 жыл бұрын
Most of the time, it's a yes or no question. Trying to qualify or explain your answer is just trying to escape the answer. You can be held in contempt for pulling this garbage... Good luck with it!
@11darklight11
2 жыл бұрын
Yes or no questions can be a trap tho. "Do your parents know that you ate the muffins? Yes or no" While you never ate muffins in first place and saying yes or no misleads from truth.
@RacerX888
2 жыл бұрын
@@mitsulang it worked. That's my point. If you don't realize that questions can be manipulated into you sounding guilty with only a yes or no answer, you better not have to defend yourself in court.
@mobilegamesonly3170
2 жыл бұрын
@@RacerX888Technically the answer to that question is 100% yes, as you were asked if you COULD answer yes or no, not if you WOULD.
@paulschaaf8880
2 жыл бұрын
Even for a yes or no question, a lot of times there could be details or assumptions that were not clarified that could turn a yes into a no or vice versa without actually lying. Not your fault if the question was not phrased precisely enough. You didn't swear not to force the lawyer to waste an hour clarifying every question before he gets the answer he wants.
@choppo52
2 жыл бұрын
Hey Steve I'm surprised you didn't mention the politicians answer when they don't want to comment on a question. "I don't recall." Seems to be an acceptable legal answer in almost any situation.
@tom8hoes
2 жыл бұрын
Especially those testifying before Congress
@valentthor2655
2 жыл бұрын
@Cipheiz or " I have no knowledge of that" Lol
@TheBluesnbob
2 жыл бұрын
That was Reagan! Today its "executive privilege"! It also applies to lies they said.!
@davidforthoffer9180
2 жыл бұрын
Heh. A politician’s answer to a question (s)he doesn’t want to answer is to volubly answer a DIFFERENT question!
@n3roc
2 жыл бұрын
@@davidforthoffer9180 well, that’s the Psaki Method. And that works usually.
@robertgolding
2 жыл бұрын
The investigators approach you as a possible witness and you tell them you didn't see anything. When they decide you did see something and call you as a witness anyway, you advise the court before you have to attend that you had already told the investigators you saw nothing and your story hasn't changed. Did this in '78 and got branded as a hostile witness, whatever that means. Funny thing is, I really hadn't seen anything, I was busy trying to figure something out and wasn't paying attention to anything around me as I was totally focused on the task at hand. The first I knew was when some cop came over to me, got my attention, asked what happened to which I asked what was he on about.
@davidforthoffer9180
2 жыл бұрын
If the judge rules that you’re a “hostile witness,” that means the attorney who called you gets to ask leading questions. Normally only the responding attorney gets to ask leading questions.
@davidforthoffer9180
2 жыл бұрын
@Mike Dalby In general, if under oath you knowingly make a false statement-including saying “I don’t know” when you do know-you can be prosecuted for that. Of course, proving that might be difficult.
@davidforthoffer9180
2 жыл бұрын
@Mike Dalby By “prove” I mean arguments and facts such that the jury will conclude that “I don’t know” is a lie. If you’re caught on video convincingly telling someone you clearly saw certain events, then two weeks later telling the opposing party during a deposition, “I don’t know” then the jury might convict you on perjury charges.
@davidforthoffer9180
2 жыл бұрын
@Mike Dalby I will concede that as far as “truth” goes, you may well be correct. But that’s not the context of the issues in this video. What matters concerning punishment is the jury’s verdict, not your belief of what’s true, or even what IS true. You said, “I don’t recall, by definition cannot be perjury”. Definitions in our legal system are determined by statutes, rules, courts, and-when all such fail-commonly accepted meanings. I challenge you to find the definition you want from those sources. In the scenario I hypothesized, the jury may well find the person guilty of perjury. You believing that such a verdict is wrong is not going to change the verdict or punishment.
@coolbreeze2.0-mortemadfasc13
6 ай бұрын
I didn’t refuse to testify, I refused to take an oath that I would testify truthfully.
@peterwhitcomb8315
2 жыл бұрын
I had a family member fail to show up to court after being subpoenaed. My family member got to spend the next ~14 days in jail until the next hearing so The State could guarantee they would be present. They released them that afternoon after their testimony. The prosecutor and defense eventually reached a settlement so my family member, as well as many other individuals, would not have to testify again. ...And the reason my family member didn't want to testify? They couldn't get the day off from work and couldn't afford to lose their job. Still lost their job. Lost their apartment too because they couldn't pay rent. Still a touchy subject 30+ years later.
@Goorood
2 жыл бұрын
Eye opening aint so ? Welcome to the Land of the Free ... as they say 🤣
@kerwinbrown4180
2 жыл бұрын
Illegal firing!
@ShionWinkler
2 жыл бұрын
Well, if they did show up, and their employer tried to fire them for that, the Judge would have had the employer dragged into court and explain why they did so... This has happened and judges are never nice about it. You can't stop a person from preforming their civic duties, and doing so will see you in jail, as you are obstructing justice, which is a felony.
@charlieodom9107
2 жыл бұрын
I had this happen to a friend. He was out of the country and couldn't be back in time for the trial and was thrown in jail for some time after the initial trial, lost his job, lost his car, lost his house, and spent years getting out of debt from the criminal court, all for something he had no part of, nor was he even in the fucking country when the incident happened.
@uzlonewolf
2 жыл бұрын
@@ShionWinkler That's why they find some other reason to fire you.
@mikemcmike1256
2 жыл бұрын
I was representing a man in an age discrimination suit against a bank. My client had been told by his boss years before that the bank had a policy of pushing out executives that reached the age of 50. When my client turned 50, he was fired. There was a witness to that conversation who still worked at the bank. I called the witness to discuss scheduling a deposition and he told me that the conversation had happened just as my client had told me, but that he would not testify. I told him I could subpoena him and he told me flat out he would lie if I did that. I told him that would be a crime and he laughed. This occured less than a year after Bill Clinton had been impeached for lying under oath and the man told me that if the president could lie, so could he.
@digitalcurrents
2 жыл бұрын
Tell him you were recording the conversation and that you're both in a one-party consent to record state. Also, if Bill Clinton can be caught in a lie, so can he.
@mikemcmike1256
2 жыл бұрын
@@digitalcurrents You may laugh when I tell you this, but under the rules of professional responsibility, lawyers are never allowed to lie. That is actually a problem for sports agents that are also lawyers and the custom is that while functioning as agents they are not lawyers. But I was just a lawyer and unwilling to violate that canon. Not that claiming I had recorded the call occured to me at the time. But that experience is one of the reasons I believed Bill Clinton should have been convicted by the Senate.
@ianlounsbury1544
2 жыл бұрын
@@mikemcmike1256 what the folks seem to think was a lie by Bill Clinton was his statement that "I did not have sex with that woman." Actually, that statement is literally true. Apparently Clinton never had actual coitus with "that woman." What the public calls "oral sex" is not actually sex. It is a form of massage, crafted orally. But since there cannot possibly be any procreation resulting, it is definitionally not "sex." Sex, or coitus, has to have the components of procreation. The next claim was that Mr. Clinton lied when he stated "I did not commit adultery." That is also literally correct. Adultery can only be committed by a married woman having coitus with a man not her husband. By that definition, a Man can never commit adultery. It is a convenient definition, to be sure.
@mikemcmike1256
2 жыл бұрын
@@ianlounsbury1544 Regardless of whether Clinton's statements were literally true (my understanding was that the Judge had given a definition of sex for purposes of the question that included oral sex) most people believe that Trump lied under oath and one result of that is that at least some peolple then felt it was OK to lie under oath or that doing so was no big deal. There was clearly some dishonesty as part of that deposition because Bill Clinton had his Arkansas law license suspended beccause of it.
@Dr_Wrong
2 жыл бұрын
@@digitalcurrents "If politicians can lie, so can I !!" ..Notta good plan to copy the ethics of politicians, even a POTUS..
@captmisha
3 ай бұрын
“Above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your 'yes' be yes and your 'no' be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation” (James 5:12).
@ceisiwrserith2224
2 ай бұрын
That's why there's an option to affirm rather than swear. Judges rarely put it in what they tell you to say, but I'm sure there'd be no problem with doing it.
@mbgrafix
2 жыл бұрын
Steve, The court makes you swear to tell the truth, the WHOLE truth and nothing but the truth. So my question is...why then is an attorney or judge allowed to interrupt me when asking me to testify? For instance, if I am in the middle of telling the WHOLE truth, they might interrupt and say, "that's enough"...but if I only told HALF of the truth and not the WHOLE truth because I was cut off, isn't the court now FORCING me to commit perjury? How is this action fair and legal when it seemingly causes the words of my swearing in to be moot?
@taoliu3949
2 жыл бұрын
Because you're just there as a witness to provide evidence. If there's more to it, the defense/prosecution has the opportunity to cross examine you to elicit whatever testimony they need out of you. Basically the attitude is that its the prosecution/defense's job to get the evidence out, not you. Now, if you're a defendant that's a different story. Long story short you can basically say anything you want as a defendant as long as you don't commit perjury
@mbgrafix
2 жыл бұрын
@@taoliu3949 Yes, I see your point and agree with you that that _is_ the process. However, if we are being _completely_ honest about it, the prosecution is not interested in "the *truth",* nor is the defense. They are both only interested in _winning._ Obviously, I mean this in a general sense as it is not possible for me to make such a statement about _every_ case. Indeed, there may be instances where _the_ truth is what _everyone_ is pursuing, and not just winning. So, what I am saying is that *"I"...* _not_ the prosecutor... _not_ the defense attorney... *"I"* am the one who is _swearing_ to tell the truth, the *_WHOLE_* truth, and *_NOTHING_* but the truth. They are not asking me to swear to tell the truth, the *_PORTION_* of the truth that the prosecutor wishes to cherry pick...or the *_PORTION_* of the truth that the defenses wishes to cherry pick. Therefore, as it applies to the verbiage of the swearing in, in all honesty ( _no pun intended_ ), I find the process to be rather disingenuous as it is rather obvious that the person being sworn in does not possess the liberty to tell "the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" as that liberty has been reserved for the court to decide.
@taoliu3949
2 жыл бұрын
@@mbgrafix "The whole truth" as in you are not purposely omitting stuff from your testimony. That said, lawyers interrupting witnesses doesn't tend to do well for them in general. It just gives the otherside an additional question for them to ask when they cross examine the witness and gives the Jury the impression you were trying to mislead them. Ultimately it doesn't really work out well for the prosecution.
@Xterraforce
2 жыл бұрын
I think it's a safe bet if the attorney feels something about you telling the whole truth isn't going to be in their favor they will interrupt. I remember a case where this happened several times as a defense attorney was questioning a witness. The witness had enough of it and said "You're honor I swore to tell the whole truth. If I'm not going to be allowed to do so for any questions he asks may I be excused?" Before the judge could answer the defense attorney said "I have no further questions for this witness." That was followed by the prosecution asking follow ups to each of the questions, the defense objecting and being overruled since they had brought the subjects up and it becoming very obvious why they had tried preventing the whole truth to be told. It's like if you're on trial for indecent exposure and a witness is asked if they saw you exposed in front of a daycare center. The witness says "Yes" then is stopped before they can finish saying "Yes, two dogs violently attacked him as he was jogging by on the sidewalk two hours before the daycare opened and partially ripped his clothes off. As he was getting up off the ground he was briefly exposed before gathering his shredded clothes around himself." Yes is indeed the truth, but leaves quite a different impression than the whole truth.
@mbgrafix
2 жыл бұрын
@@Xterraforce Indeed! The court is _clearly_ not _truly_ interested in the *WHOLE* truth.
@angryadrien
2 жыл бұрын
When in court, with his hand placed on the bible, my good friend was asked "do you swear to to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?" To which Robert replied "I will tell you what I know but I do not know the whole truth, lest it would be my name in this book rather than my hand upon it"
@zapazap
2 жыл бұрын
In general the judge would happily explain the sense of tbe phrase 'the whole truth' that the court was using, that it differed from yours, and invite you to try again. Or unhappily. YMMV. What was your friend's mileage?
@AvgDan
2 жыл бұрын
If I said no and the judge asked me why I said no, I'd say: "I cannot predict whether or not the lawyers will allow me to tell the 'whole truth', in fact, I highly suspect they may request that I only answer yes or no to their questions and they will not ask all the questions necessary to provide the court with a whole account of the truth. If we can agree to strike 'the whole truth' from the the oath I will say yes. If this is not removed from my oath, it's my belief that saying yes is a lie in and of itself."
@MonkeyJedi99
2 жыл бұрын
That would be a fun one to be in the gallery for.
@mikepalmer1971
2 жыл бұрын
I like how you think.
@Chris-yd4kg
2 жыл бұрын
Sometimes they tell you all of the things you're not allowed to mention in front of the jury, but then tell you to swear in front of the jury to tell the whole truth. It's such a rigged system.
@johngori9477
2 жыл бұрын
I wonder what would happen if when the lawyers play their usual game of using careful yes/no questions to avoid letting you tell the truth, you were to say to the judge, "Your honor continuing to answer only carefully selected yes/no questions will place me in violation of my oath to tell "the whole truth"?
@MonkeyJedi99
2 жыл бұрын
@@Chris-yd4kg Things like "You can't call those deaths murders." or "Your secret plea deal means you can't name the big criminal at the top of the organization because we're busy trying to turn him to a double agent for the FBI."
@decur8
2 жыл бұрын
Steve, an interesting story my grandmother told me years ago. You have heard the saying "I have slept since then". Mema said it came from a trial where one man refused to testify by answering "I don't remember, I've slept since then". When asked to explain himself he said that he starts every day fresh and puts the past behind him to the point he doesn't keep details in his memory. After much to do... they had to let his testimony stand. I have slept since then. According to my grandmother this was a true story.
@patchbunny
2 жыл бұрын
I bet his memory worked just fine when people owed him money.
@SophiaAphrodite
2 жыл бұрын
He is set for release in 2024
@kinder1847robert
2 жыл бұрын
20+ years ago I was called to give a deposition and later testify in a federal trial, the plaintiffs 3 attorneys where complete idiots. During the deposition I was threatened twice, later I received 9 subpoenas from the 3 attorneys with my name miss spelled, the process server refused to give me the information to confirm they where true federal subpoenas. The defense later served me a subpoena with everything correct. I appeared in the federal court when sworn in I said no, the judge asked my why I explained that due to distrust in the three attorneys and their incompetent handling of my subpoenas and their treats I could not trust them not to charge me with prudery, or bring other legal action, no matter how truthful I was as a result I would not swear or attest. I stated that I would answer the questions to the best of my ability and it would be up to the jury to decide if it was accurate. The judge asked for the Subpoenas after looking at them he told the 3 that it would be a late night in his office. Told me he understood and to take the stand, answered the questions and was dismissed. Later heard the 3 had several bad days in chambers. I respected this Judge for doing the right thing.
@hankkingsley9300
2 жыл бұрын
I've never heard of anyone charged with prudery usually it's the other way around
@steveskouson9620
2 жыл бұрын
"...plaintiff(')s 3 attorneys w(h)[not needed]ere complete idiots." And, you "arnt"? Really "aren't." ""Were." "Plaintiff's." "Misspelled." (Yes, it really IS a single word. Have someone look it, and everything else, up for you.) On the other hand, you just might be guilty of "prudery." (The act of being a prude.) "Perjury" maybe? Please step back from the keyboard. The damage you do, will be to you. (Should have edited again, after letting your only friend re-read your post.) steve
@davidstone1227
2 жыл бұрын
In case you are being not merely being disingenuous, I suspect that autocorrect converted a mistaken spelling of 'perjury' to 'prudery'. But I'm just some random shlub, so what do I know?
@MarcillaSmith
2 жыл бұрын
I, for one, am honored to share this comment thread with such gentlemen and scholars.
@btcbob11392
2 жыл бұрын
Spoken like a true lawyer, 12 minutes to answer a question that really only needed 30 seconds.
@chadlampson
Жыл бұрын
Lawyers... try talking to a computer geek.... we'll turn "Reboot it." Into a long list of steps, "Save all your work, close all your programs, double check everything is saved, press this, type that, cross your fingers, ..., ..., ..."
@johnyoung9649
Жыл бұрын
Lawyers charge by the minute. It may be a hard habit to break.
@bubbajones4522
Жыл бұрын
OMG, this! Cut 90% of the fat out of your video and just get to the point.
@juliewoods6534
Жыл бұрын
Just billing hours.
@fashiontees9753
Жыл бұрын
Longer videos pay the producer more than shorter videos.
@edcctf
2 жыл бұрын
I did see this happen. I was in an Ohio Mayor's court and I had accused my neighbor of litter/dog running loose issues. When we got to the court and he was asked "Do you swear..." he said, "No." Just as you said, the mayor said, "No?" and he repeated no. The village solicitor and the mayor got together and whispered a bit and in the end just let him testify anyway. He lied. No surprises there. Then I testified and he was found guilty. End result he made the front page of the local newspaper. I'll see if I can find the clipping. If I can I'll scan it and send it to you.
@inkdelencquesaing1924
2 жыл бұрын
It sounds to me like you're making up that story.
@edcctf
2 жыл бұрын
@@inkdelencquesaing1924 honestly, if I hadn’t been there I wouldn’t believe it either. Lol
@jamesf2697
2 ай бұрын
Even with a lawsuit, imagine a customer slips and falls at the place you work. You are caaled to testify because you saw what happened. You know there is a good chance it you testify, you will be fired.
@ewanlee6337
2 ай бұрын
That would probably be an easy unlawful firing lawsuit since it’s illegal for them to fire you for testifying against you. That said they’d probably never give you a bonus, raise or promotion again and be ready to fire you as soon as they have an excuse so best to look for a new job.
@Gay_Priest
2 жыл бұрын
I heard a story about someone who ignored a subpoena, their boss threatened to fire them if they didnt go to work and didnt care about a court order. When dragged into court they told the judge and their boss got in really deep shit really fast
@manlybaker3098
Жыл бұрын
I've seen that happen, too.
@fairplayer7435
11 ай бұрын
LMAO, the boss was a nut
@toddbates1099
3 ай бұрын
G. Gordon Liddy was held in contempt by Congress for refusing to take the oath at an Armed Services Committee hearing on Watergate.
@finaoo1167
2 жыл бұрын
Interesting that you admired Ron’s ability to ask his question so succinctly. The answer could have easily (and thoroughly) be given in less than a minute.
@cidfacetious3722
2 жыл бұрын
But then he wouldn’t have content. Duh
@finaoo1167
2 жыл бұрын
@@cidfacetious3722 - I'd watch more of his videos if they were shorter.
@Palimbacchius
2 жыл бұрын
So true! Compare Legal Eagle, succinct and focussed.
@Stockhandle123
2 жыл бұрын
I actually did this I was a witness to a crime I was forced to testify I said I was not gonna tell the truth and I was held in contempt. I eventually pled the fifth and it was a tremendous pain I had to get a lawyer I spent some time in holding. My only reason is I do not ever cooperate with law-enforcement under any circumstances.
@DonziGT230
2 жыл бұрын
Yea, 5 minutes in and the question still hasn't been addressed. I believe monetization depends on the video being at least 10 minutes long so he stretches them out, often too far for my patience.
@thomassnyder5646
Жыл бұрын
By saying “no”, my argument would be”I’m not refusing to testify, I’m stating that I’m not swearing to tell the truth.”
@QBAN2010
4 ай бұрын
Steve, you are convoluting the refusal to tell the truth with the willingness to testify! Reminds me of the old joke, are you a liar? No!!!
@r00tdigger21
4 ай бұрын
I've once done 90 days for just this, told the judge flat out didn't care lock me up not saying a word. Even under threat of life in prison not making me talk
@trentvlak
3 ай бұрын
king
@detlefvonkalben9577
2 жыл бұрын
do as they do in Washington DC say" I don't recall"
@juanguzman8034
2 жыл бұрын
I have total recall tell them everything even things that are not relevant to the case.
@michaelpond6386
3 ай бұрын
Only if you are invoking “the inmate code”. Raise your left hand, “as an inmate it is my duty to inform you , that I will lie , cheat, or steal, or do whatever I have to do to beat the charges against me”. This is an actual quote by an inmate in a trial , in an Oregon court.
@wm3138
6 ай бұрын
Easier to get sworn in then say “I don’t recall”, “it’s possible” “that doesn’t seem right” “maybe” or other vague responses.
@RenoSaxGuy
2 жыл бұрын
When I was in the U.S. Air Force a couple decades ago, we had to get annual drug abuse awareness training. The session would start with the trainer lighting a small piece of an incense like material that smelled like marijuana smoke. The trainer would leave the room for a few minutes to let the conversation begin among the attendees. The trainer would then come back into the room and discuss about how we are to act in case we are called to testify in any legal proceedings, such as a court martial. We were instructed to say something like "... it smelled like burning rope... " and not that is smelled like marijuana smoke. I grew up on a farm and we never burned any rope. There was some old hemp rope that was used to operate the hay hooks to lift hay into the barn. The closest thing to burning hemp rope was burning of sisal twine that was used to make the hay bales. That smelled nothing like marijuana. I have also smelled burning nylon rope, that also smells nothing like marijuana smoke. While I never had to testify in any such proceedings, the instructions were clear that if you smelled marijuana smoke, must lie and testify that you smelled something like burning rope.
@FurtiveSkeptical
2 жыл бұрын
Holdover from the days when all rope was probably hemp or some such.
@RenoSaxGuy
2 жыл бұрын
@@FurtiveSkeptical Sort of - however, hemp rope was made illegal in 1937 with the Marijuana Tax Act. The reason the trainer said we must lie is because we are not experts on marijuana and if we actually knew what marijuana smelled like, we must also be guilty of using marijuana. The last time I had to take the drug awareness training was around 1990. The point is, we were specifically told we could not tell the truth if we were ever asked what we smelled.
@johncochran8497
2 жыл бұрын
@@RenoSaxGuy You might want to check your facts there. Hemp rope is totally legal and can be purchased easily. Hemp and Jute rope is valued in some communities because of its strength and low stretch.
@RenoSaxGuy
2 жыл бұрын
@@johncochran8497 You might want to check when I was in the Air Force in my original comment. At that time hemp was listed as Schedule 1 controlled substance. I can't say whether hemp fabric and rope was legal at the time. I know that at that time, a member of the military service, was told I couldn't possess, use, or know what marijuana smelled like. I believe a farm bill passed by Congress and signed into law in 2018 removed many of the controls placed on hemp production and use. I don't know why you brought up jute (family Malvaceae), it isn't even related to marijuana (family Cannabaceae). I don't think there were ever any issues with the possession or use of jute or its products.
@johncochran8497
2 жыл бұрын
@@RenoSaxGuy Just checked. It was totally legal to import hemp rope to the USA. The USA had a ban on growing hemp until the date you mentioned. But as said, importing hemp rope was legal. Reason I mentioned jute, is that the BDSM community valued hemp and jute rope because both are natural fiber ropes with extremely low stretch.
@Xterraforce
2 жыл бұрын
I've always thought it was odd to have you place your hand on the Bible, a book which says you should never swear an oath (Matthew 5:34) and ask you to swear an oath. I once head a guy say "I will tell the truth." rather than simply saying yes. The judge didn't seem to have a problem with that.
@kenbrown2808
2 жыл бұрын
you're not telling the whole story. the whole story is that people were swearing oaths by things they had no control over, or swearing oaths by things that would allow them to weasel out of the oath. and so the lesson in the bible was "just be honest and stop with this silly oath business."
@tcm81
2 жыл бұрын
I understand that the Quakers will not swear oaths, as they consider it to be blasphemous and so merely affirm to tell the truth.
@TheGiantRobot
2 жыл бұрын
Exactly. The irony is mind blowing. It says a lot about the human race.
@Xterraforce
2 жыл бұрын
I am aware of the reasons behind it. I just didn't feel the background story was relevant to the point in this particular case.
@tekelupharsin4426
2 жыл бұрын
Matthew 5:33-37 KJV Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: [34] But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: [35] Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. [36] Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. [37] But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
@ktcd1172
2 жыл бұрын
Steve, First of all thank you for dealing with this question. Due to my previous Federal Employment I have long considered this type of situation. Not that I would refuse to testify, but that i would refuse to be truthful in my answers. This decision would depend upon whether the Court/Senate Hearing, etc. met all the requirements imposed upon me for authorized disclosure of the information in my responses. Is there in the eyes of the Court/Law a difference between refusing to testify and refusing to give truthful testimony? When I considered how I would respond, if the situation ever arose, I considered the Penalty for having ticked off the Court verses the penalties for unauthorized disclosure. 90 days to a year beats 20 years to life/execution hands down.
@inkdelencquesaing1924
2 жыл бұрын
Yes, I swear. Where were you on the night of December 20th? ...I'm cashing some Z's. Pardon? Where were you on Friday, December 20th? ...I can see Hunter Biden lighting his crack pipe, it's BLAZING! Judge: Are you refusing to answer, or are you mental? ...Only GAHD our Creator can say what he intended as being Created normal, yo. I tells him da trootfffffff, we have deep, honest talks my man, GAHD is da judge.
@phillipmargrave
2 жыл бұрын
So you’re a traitor and/or murderer for the deep state
@markt1964
2 жыл бұрын
I was wondering something similar actually... although I see it not so much necessarily "refusing" to give truthful testimony at all, but simply refusing to *promise* that one's testimony would be truthful. So testimony is still provided upon demand, but it would be unreliable and generally no more useful than not having any testimony in the first place. But consider also that the fact that truth is also objective fact... and promising to tell it is technically quite different from simply promising not to lie, the latter being based strictly on the color of one's own interpretation of the events as they unfolded and as they were perceived by you, and in some cases can diverge from the actual truth greatly. For a person who interprets words very literally, a promise to tell the truth may in fact be impossible for someone to give, particularly if they realize that they aren't sure what the truth actually might be.
@ryanknight2497
2 жыл бұрын
ummm i think the response would be , "sorry that's classified"
@danielwardin4688
2 жыл бұрын
There was a reporter at the N.Y. Times who to protect a source refused to testify; she spent about a month in the clink until she was released on legal grounds I also forget. Regards.
@lkuhhdsfgasdgvdadfg
3 ай бұрын
If your willing to go to jail, a judge cant force you to do anything. The only actual power they have is what we give them.
@rustyanderson8247
4 ай бұрын
An agreement made under duress such as, "Sigh this or I wil hurt you.", is not binding. Then why is it binding when the judge tells you that you must agree to tell the truth or he will put you in jail?
@nerdyengineer7943
3 ай бұрын
Because you people are in bondage to the State.
@ewanlee6337
2 ай бұрын
The oath is really you saying, I understand that I’ll be punished if I am caught lying rather than an agreement.
@Jerry_Fried
2 ай бұрын
He addresses the actual question at 6:00.
@Tensquaremetreworkshop
2 жыл бұрын
What concerns me is the 'the whole truth' part. How can you swear to that, when you only get to answer the questions asked?
@SmallSpoonBrigade
2 жыл бұрын
It means that when you're answering you're answering the question that's been asked without gerrymandering around things that are inconvenient. Typically, the attorneys will ask more questions to follow up if anything truly significant is left out. They've usually already asked a bunch of other questions during the depositions stage of proceedings. Once you're at trial, they should already know about anything truly significant.
@screweverything2215
2 жыл бұрын
@@SmallSpoonBrigade no it's doesn't it means the truth, nothing but the truth, the whole truth literally means any truth pertaining to the case, so 90% of court cases are a sham because they disallow full truth in em.
@Tensquaremetreworkshop
2 жыл бұрын
@@SmallSpoonBrigade Significant in their opinion, and if it is beneficial to their intended narrative. We all hold a version of the 'truth' that is a model of our understanding of an experienced event. We create a 'memory' of what we have seen/heard/felt that is consistent with our world view. It is 'true' in the sense that it is largely self consistent and contains elements of what may have actually happened. To transfer this construction to another human requires more than answering questions constructed to fit a narrative that fits a lawyer's desired objectives.
@davidforthoffer9180
2 жыл бұрын
@@Tensquaremetreworkshop it’s the job of the opposing attorney to bring out what the first attorney didn’t.
@Tensquaremetreworkshop
2 жыл бұрын
@@davidforthoffer9180 Not always. They may wish to paint a 'simple' version of events (don't confuse the jury...) which is not the 'whole' truth. For example, some evidence might point to the innocence of the main charge, but guilt of a lessor charge.
@alpheusmadsen8485
2 жыл бұрын
There was a case in Idaho, I believe, where a judge found a witness in contempt, because base on a certain law, the witness was required to swear, but the witness wouldn't swear. The law was declared unConstitutional by a judge who sponsered the law in the first place. He apologized to the witness, and said "I'm sorry, but this law was supposed to *protect* people like you, and it was clearly written wrong!"
@saved_yet_so_as_by_fire
2 жыл бұрын
The Bible tells us not to swear at all.
@kellyvcraig
2 жыл бұрын
AFFIRMative. Every state and the District of Columbia has a constitution guaranteeing religious liberties. For many, the Bible is part of the exercise of those liberties. In it can be found language which says "to swear not." That is, let your yeas be yeas and your nay's be nays.
@fredjones43
2 жыл бұрын
Wow thank you for this comment. Please give a case citation.
@fredjones43
2 жыл бұрын
@@saved_yet_so_as_by_fire To whom is your allegiance? If to the government, it is hard to claim allegiance to God. All US Persons allegiance is to the state.
@saved_yet_so_as_by_fire
2 жыл бұрын
@@fredjones43 the kingdoms of the Earth have been handed over to the adversary. I love God
@richj120952
7 ай бұрын
I would say, I will testify as truthfully as to my existing recollection and belief of that truth at this time. I will never give them an unequivocal yes. If asked why, I would say that memory is proven to be a unreliable thing, and my belief of what the truth is may be wrong, and I may later find that my recollection or belief has changed. I am human. This way I avoid "perjury" should my recollection be off or wrong.
@machinemaker2248
2 жыл бұрын
"Please note in the court records that I was forced under threat of violence to enter into this agreement. I am not a willing party. I promise to tell the truth ..." Now everything I say cannot be used anyway, right?
@jimgraves5340
2 жыл бұрын
Objection, judge!! TDC - Threat, Duress, Coercion
@Frankie5Angels150
2 жыл бұрын
What threat of violence?
@machinemaker2248
2 жыл бұрын
@@Frankie5Angels150 being shackled by men with guns and put into a cage with criminals who will have fun showing me why it's called the "pokey."
@SeptemberMeadows
Жыл бұрын
In my entire life I've had to be in the witness box only twice. The first time was in the 1990s. They went through the whole, "do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth..." had a Bible. I said, "no." They were taken aback and asked, "No?" I explained, "I'm an atheist, I don't believe in that stuff so cannot swear to anything but I do affirm that I will tell the truth." A large number of people in the courtroom gasped and muttered. I looked at them like they were all simpletons. The bailiff looked confused and looked at the judge, she just waved her hand at him as though to say let it pass. Then everything went on without a hitch.
@dalfifran7572
Жыл бұрын
Aaaah, the 90's. Good time... :D
@LTDunltd
Жыл бұрын
I had something similar, I refused to place my hand on the bible. The bailiff kept demanding that I do so. I told him I do not believe that a book of fairy tales will compel me to tell the truth. The judge asked me if I will tell the truth without the book. I replied that, I will tell the truth as required by the court. The judge was satisfied with that and told the lawyers to ask their first questions.
@dorothywillis1
Жыл бұрын
I'm sure you children had fun teasing the grownups.
@joeyb7064
3 ай бұрын
“I do not recall.”
@greyscout01
3 ай бұрын
If you don’t want to be on a jury, there are two answers that work... In a civil case, say that, you don’t believe in awarding money for 'pain and suffering'. In a criminal case, say, 'I believe that if they've been arrested, then they're probably guilty of something'. And just like that, you're home for dinner. It's worked every time.
@aholegunner
2 жыл бұрын
Your video just brightened my day Steve. Thank you for being such a cool guy and entertaining as well. Your humor is spot on.
@steveriley3891
3 ай бұрын
Our subpoenas say “ You are commanded to appear, answer truthfully any all questions as may be propounded , and therefore remain until such time as you are released” or some variation of that verbiage. Also people lie to the “police” all the time and there is no statute about that in Texas. If you however, lie on a statement or falsify an affidavit in some way, then you can be charged with perjury.
@maryjackson1194
3 ай бұрын
I've noticed that in many recent court cases, the oath is to tell the truth and nothing but the truth: they've dropped the "whole truth." That allows attorneys to ask narrow questions. I'm not sure it's an advantage.
@donna30044
2 жыл бұрын
As a police officer in Georgia for over 30 years, I have appeared in many courts, and, if a bible was presented or the word "god" was used, I would refuse the bible and say, "No, but I promise to be truthful on pain of perjury." One judge (juvenile court) threatened to hold me in contempt, but finally accepted my testimony. Since I am a non-theist, swearing an oath on a religious text or invoking a deity would be dishonest and untruthful.
@Tkidddd
2 жыл бұрын
In Virginia they ask you do you salami swear or affirm to tell the truth.
@c2757
2 жыл бұрын
In the UK, alternative procedures for non-Christians are now standard. It is obviously an absurdity, not just to ask someone who doesn't believe in the Christian faith to swear on the Bible, but even to allow them to do it. As an atheist, I would be equally happy to swear on the Bible, or any other sheaf of bits of paper but the 'oath' would be meaningless.
@TheLionAndTheLamb777
2 жыл бұрын
@@Tkidddd Pretty sure you meant "solemnly", or you may just be making a lunch meat joke.
@johnrains8409
3 ай бұрын
Remember, you can judge the law as a juror. Do not make a big deal of it. Do not tell anyone what you are doing. In the deliberation, do not speak unless asked a direct question. Vote to acquit. If challenged, just say you aren't convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, and nothing else.
@longlost8424
2 жыл бұрын
lmao. I faced this exact dilemma back in 1994ish when I was called to testify in a death of my friend due to a dui. when I was ushered to the stand and directed to place my hand on a bible and sear to "tell the truth", I said "no thank you". when the judge asked me why?, I told him that I've been an atheist since I was 5, and that this ridiculous aspect of religious text swearing does NOTHING to prevent someone from lying regardless of their claiming to do so. I also stated that I had issues with the 10 commandments hanging in the court room as well since that also has NO bearing on reality. he agreed with me, then asked if I would tell the truth, "just the same" and I agreed to do so, thus averting a possible "contempt" charge.
@DorianStretton
2 жыл бұрын
You couldn't affirm, rather than swear? Here in the UK atheists, and others such as Quakers, can affirm that they will tell the truth rather than swear.
@MisterTwister222
2 жыл бұрын
*tips fedora*
@jimtrue1465
2 жыл бұрын
@@DorianStretton Yes, in the US, the state cannot compel a person to swear an oath, which is considered a religious act. You always have the right to affirm instead.
@longlost8424
2 жыл бұрын
@@DorianStretton like I said in my post, when asked if I'd tell the truth "just the same", I agreed..... I didn't "affirm" but did agree.....
@timothyburch2896
4 ай бұрын
I have noticed that sometimes the oath includes a reference to God, as in “So help you God”. I never really understood what that means. And why is it included in the oath sometimes and not others? As an atheist I don’t acknowledge the existence of such a thing. I was sworn in once and so I just asked for clarification. “What God do I have to swear to?”. They said whichever god you choose. It just so happened that there was a storm at time. and a clap of thunder sounded, so I said o.k. I choose Thor . It got a chuckle out of everyone and that was the end of it.
@agentsmith1038
4 ай бұрын
I actually know someone that did this. When the judge asked him "why not?", he said "cuz I don't know the truth". Judge said "you are dismissed".
@RationalGaze216
4 ай бұрын
What if your memory is imperfect -- you remember something now a little differently than you remembered it two years ago at the deposition. And if you give answers that are even slightly incongruent with one another, and if the prosecutor is feeling vindictive, you could then be charged with perjury. And this has happened.
@farqend
2 жыл бұрын
A few years back being sworn in as a Juror I said "No", I would not swear by a god, being an atheist that means nothing. They quickly made up an oath that dropped the "god" from the standard oath, to which I also replied "No". The State of Maine has specific, oaths documented in our laws for people who refuse to "swear", which they were forced to find. Something like... I promise under the pains and penalties of perjury etc. As you can imagine I got the boot and was not part of the impaneled Jury.
@alpheusmadsen8485
2 жыл бұрын
This kind of thing shouldn't have to be something that Courts have to hunt down and find. There are religious folk who don't swear, either, because their beliefs forbid them from swearing by anything -- their affirmation that what they say will be true should be sufficient.
@gregrobsn
2 жыл бұрын
As one who is atheist, I've always insisted that any oath taken on a Bible or to someone's god would be perjury in and of itself. I will swear an oath under penalty of perjury or on my honor or the clock on the wall, but to hold out a Bible means you're going to get a no from me.
@thomassoderstrom6369
4 ай бұрын
You're supposed to be protected against self-incrimination. The problem: If you say one thing in one testimony, and another thing in another, because you forget certain details and remember others, you can be jailed for perjury. And that's self-incrimination.
@chriskatz2355
2 жыл бұрын
Well, theres a lot of ways to look at this 🤔 you cannot compel speech with freedom of speech
@rockysquirrel4776
2 жыл бұрын
It's extraordinary that judges are allowed to suspend a witness's Constitutional rights by threatening your freedom.
@S.Waters.
2 жыл бұрын
@@rockysquirrel4776, it’s disturbing.
@johnmicheal3547
2 жыл бұрын
If the court is bound by the constitution than the court must be bound by the constitution. The constitution doesn't bound the individual. The free individual have the right to say no. The witness have the right to deny being the witness. Once the judge or the law written to take away a person's natural right that judge/law no longer follow the law of the land, the constitution.
@chriskatz2355
2 жыл бұрын
@@rockysquirrel4776 "if you testify in court, we will kill you" on the likewise "thou shalt not take an oath; thou shalt not deceive" sometimes silence or refusal is the right answer.
@quintrankid8045
2 жыл бұрын
@@rockysquirrel4776 A1 constrains Congress, but does it constrain the Judicial branch?
@brony_in_the_sticks
2 ай бұрын
Freedom of association, and from association. Yes,i can refuse to tell the truth, or even talk at all, because I can refuse to associate with whoever i want for whatever reason I have.
@johnvickersziarnick5174
2 жыл бұрын
On the other hand, I was summoned for jury duty and wrote back stating I didn't want to. I received a notice from the judge in the case stating I needed to be there. I wrote back again stating I did not want to. The next communication from the judge asked me why I didn't want to be part of his jury selection process, I wrote back stating that I didn't believe the system worked. I was tokd to be there or be found in contempt. So I went. When it was my turn to ve questioned the judge asked the standard questions. Finally he asked me if there were any law officers in my family and I told him there were many. He asked me if that being the case, would that be a reason I couldn't make a rational decision based on the evidence oresented, and I said no. At that point he asked me what my problem with being on the jury would be. I simply stated that if the the defendants were caught at Sky Harbor Airport with many kilos of cocaine, they were obviously guikty and didn't want to waste my time with the trial. At that point the 7 attorneys from the prosecution and the 2 from the defense asked fir a confrence and stoid in front of the judge. After a short time, the judge stated I had contaminated the 170 plus prosoective jurors and dismissed the entire lot. He sneared and glated at me while I smiled back. I was never called for jury duty again the entire time I lived in Phoenix.
@KillerAceUSAF
2 жыл бұрын
I'll take "things that never happenes" for $500 Alex.
@libertyrevolutionary1776
3 ай бұрын
The secret is if you know a case is coming up, leave the state, or even the county without a trace so you can't be served until the case is resolved. If a proscess server can't make direct contact in person, you can't be served.
@billydelacey
4 ай бұрын
Refusing to recite the magical oath spell incantation is NOT the same as refusing to testify. Indeed, I can think of no more honest an answer than "no, I do not swear to tell the truth."
@glcapp
2 жыл бұрын
Leave it to a lawyer to ignore the right of avoidance. It's done by challenging jurisdiction AT THE OUTSET rather than after appearing. But to the legal society that has a stranglehold on people, their power is without question.
@wynwilliams6977
3 ай бұрын
In Finland witnesses do not swear an oath, they are required by law to tell the truth, defendants are NOT required to tell the truth.
@martinwalker9386
4 ай бұрын
In 1992 I was in the Navy and received an order to appear. I took it to the Command Master Chief and he said I couldn’t go because the ship would be underway. I was to leave it to him. About two hours later he came up to me and said that I would be on TAD for the period the ship was to be underway and I would appear per the letter. 5 witnesses were there and the defendant changed his plea to guilty after his attorney “talked” with him.
@stevem1081
3 ай бұрын
I would tell the judge that my life was threatened if I told the truth, and that being alive in jail is a better option.
@patmancrowley8509
2 жыл бұрын
Steve, so I say "No but I am willing to testify to what I've seen." Telling the truth relies on remembering something accurately. Witnesses every day see the same thing but remember it differently. So wouldn't saying "No, but I'll still testify" get you out of a contempt charge?
@mja91352
2 жыл бұрын
obviously not
@TheTankFG
3 ай бұрын
“I don’t recall….” “I don’t remember…”
@keithguidry2841
3 ай бұрын
I went for jury duty the judge asked if I thought I could be fair an objective. I said no and got dismissed.
@m.a.r.2789
2 жыл бұрын
That was a long explanation on how to avoid testifying in court. In my younger days I’d avoid the process server till case was resolved so I wouldn’t have to snitch on anyone. So my advice to those who don’t want to be drug into the court drama…hide from process server because no one can be made to testify until they get served.
@kylemarston6822
2 жыл бұрын
Almost every State can just post the notice on your door and you are server or send it through the mail with confirmed delivery. So unless you are completely off the grid I can very simply serve you and even if there are processes to get complete the serve. Spent 2 year serving for arrears people refused and at the end they just pay more.
@davidamoritz
2 жыл бұрын
@@kylemarston6822 amost every state? Which ones? I have been a P.I. and process server in multiple states and NONE of their laws are as you say. M.A.R. real civic duty of ya bro and you wonder why the world is so crappy today, you yes you, and people that think like you are the reason! Good job having no morals or social responsibilities brother. But I bet you flew a BLM OR UKRAINE FLAG didn't you? How much hypocrisy you got 🤔
@kylemarston6822
2 жыл бұрын
@@davidamoritz The world is crappy today because everyone wants no consequences. People can pay their bills, you agreed to the amount, you want things to get better people need personal responsibility, it is not my fault people failed to pay their rent or make arrangements. A quick google search shows you that only in New York, California and Indianna require arrears to be delivered in person and most just allow the court to post it to your former address and a public forum (newspaper), trust me they will find you sooner or late and are more than happy to tack on a late fee. Also I am sure if your where owed that money you would be singing differently. This may be different in other proceedings I never dealt with those but if they want you as a witness the judge can just issue a material witness warrant and hold you in contempt until you testify. You worked as a Pi for years and had morals that's a joke. You where either a slave to an insurance company or spent your days busting cheating spouses. Looked into it as I medically separated asked everyone I could find about the job and they all said the same thing it is slime and nothing else.
@mja91352
2 жыл бұрын
Luckily, most people are law-abiding citizens.
@redfluxbluedawn414
2 жыл бұрын
I've never been in a situation which would lead to all of this, but what happens when you're too scared of personal consequences (someone getting revenge later) or scared of providing wrong context with your answer (if you don't fully understand the situation or they trick you into giving an answer which is technically correct but gives the wrong idea)? Most crimes you hear about on the radio, when the case is actually over, the convict usually get's away with only a few years (or less) or just that thing around your ankle (or nothing due to procedure mistake). I'd be terrified to testify against such a person, scared for both my life and that of my family/friends. Does the answer have to be yes exclusive or can you say something like: "I'll answer all questions to the best of my ability"? You're not actually refusing, just being cautious, that can hardly be considered contempt.
@alimcg376
2 жыл бұрын
Not exactly the same as the movie The Client with Susan Sarandon. Her client takes the oath but pleads the fifth because he is afraid mobsters will be after him and his family.
@mja91352
2 жыл бұрын
You could, and should, be held in contempt of court and jailed.
@Firesgone
2 жыл бұрын
This is what witness protection services is for, though you won't likely get that unless this really is someone related to gangs and such
@fehoobar
Жыл бұрын
No straightforward answer here, probably. It all depends on the case and how important of a witness you are. Also depends on if it's a civil or a criminal suit. First off, you can fight the subpoena itself -- you can file a motion to quash, you can argue that you should be allowed to testify with just a statement/deposition anonymously, you can try to limit the subpoena, you can end up in the hospital on the day of the trial. Then it'll be up to the court to determine if your argument has merit and what they want to do. Mostly the question "truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth" is a formality, a very essential one, but a formality still. You can object to the Bible being used, you can object to the wording. With the actual questioning, you can ,drag your feet answering, you can answer "I do not recall" to everything, you can say "I do not understand the question" or claim the question makes no sense in the context. You can certainly do all of these things, but again then it will be VERY much up to the judge how much they will put up with this. Of course, then you can ask "Are you hereby releasing me from my oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?" which gets us again to the point of sophistry and how much the judge will put up with. If you're an expert witness, you should be familiar with the case already and should get away with some amount of answers like "The question makes no sense in this context," If you're an eyewitness in criminal proceedings, much less, but then you or your lawyer should be able to argue for your safety and then we again come back to what the court will allow and what it won't, which will depend very much on the court, jurisdiction, case at hand and how important of a witness you are.
@justkelly6992
Жыл бұрын
Most short sentences are the results of plea bargains, not procedural errors. Unethical Prosecutors stack charges in multiple numbers as a way to force you to plead guilty to perhaps the one or two actual valid charges they can prove knowing if you go before a jury with 25 counts of armed robbery, mayhem and nose picking you most likely will be convicted on all of the charges. Better to plea out on the nose picking than the armed robbery. Resulting in a small sentences.
@clintonwilcox4690
3 ай бұрын
It's always seemed odd to me that they make you swear on a Bible because if you're an atheist or a member of a different religion, you hold no loyalty to the Bible or what it represents, so swearing on it isn't going to make you more likely to keep your word. And technically, in Christianity you're not supposed to swear an oath, as per Matthew 5:33-37, which says not to swear by anything but simply to be true to our word, and anything more comes from the evil one. A Christian is always supposed to tell the truth, so swearing oaths is seen as unnecessary but also potentially immoral.
@Unmannedair
3 ай бұрын
If I'm brought into a court as a witness and I'm threatened with contempt of court. I would simply reply that's accurate. The double standard in our judicial system lately is almost beneath my contempt. It is certainly not within my esteem. And whatever good faith I may have had in it as a younger adult has most certainly been removed.
@cs_fl5048
2 ай бұрын
it always interests me that they can require you to testify but then ask if you will tell the truth. as has been pointed out...i usually cant tell the whole truth because objections and being cut off. i have been expert witness and fact witness in the past. i have often answered no when asked if i recall something...because i didn't. the event was like 13 years ago and i didnt recall it. they had my notes in front of them. if they showed them to me and then asked...i might. but the attorney never did. i was going to ask the recorder to stop and inform the attorney if he kept asking me if i remembered the answer would likely be no. but i decided why should i tell him how to do his job when he called me out of my job to question me about something from long ago when he had my notes from the time in his hand..
@tarynmiller-bell347
7 ай бұрын
@ 11:00. When I was in jury duty years ago they actually aske "Do you swear or affirm...." I took notice since I am one that has to affirm instead of swearing with my religion.
@GregFirehawk
3 ай бұрын
If a court forced me to sit in jail for 90 days because I didn't feel like cooperating with something, you can bet that if I didn't have contempt for them before then I definitely do now.
@MikeDCWeld
3 ай бұрын
If a court is compelling testimony from an unwilling witness, the Court should be held in contempt. "No" should most definitely be considered a correct and allowable response to the Oath.
@jimpeel
3 ай бұрын
In the United States, the First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from forcing people to perform religious acts, including swearing oaths in court. Witnesses in most state and federal court systems can choose between taking an oath or making an affirmation. An affirmation is a secular statement where the witness promises to tell the truth.
@Fiddling_while_Rome_burns
6 ай бұрын
Follow up question: Having taken the oath under threat of imprisonment. Are you then actually required to tell the truth, as any contract made under duress is invalid?
@nyankers
2 жыл бұрын
As a contrarian nihilist, I feel like I'm morally obligated to answer with "I'm here to fulfill the court's order."
@inkdelencquesaing1924
2 жыл бұрын
So then, where were you on the night of May 17th, 2022? (see if u can weasel out of my next question. Play along with me...)
@gomezmunoz584
2 жыл бұрын
@@inkdelencquesaing1924 I would say "Heck if I know. I don't remember. I am lucky if I remember what I had for breakfast this morning."
@nyankers
2 жыл бұрын
@@inkdelencquesaing1924 I don't remember.
@amesj1999
4 ай бұрын
How and when did a court acquire personal jurisdiction over witness who is not a party to a case? And has anyone ever challenged the court's alleged personal jurisdiction over a witness?
@SteeIW0LF
4 ай бұрын
“No your honor, it’s not contempt of court.” “I was ordered to be here, I’m here.” “I am ordered to testify, I will testify”. “I am ASKED if I will be truthful. No……”
@advaitrahasya
3 ай бұрын
When railroaded into court, my Master said "you want me to swear to tell the truth - on the biggest book of lies? ;)
@robertjohnsontaylor3187
3 ай бұрын
I think after all this, you did understand the question. The person did not say he would not testify, but that he would not swear to tell the truth. That’s different.
@robklein5316
4 ай бұрын
What happens if I refuse to swear due to religion? Matthew 5:34-37 But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black.
@Moosetick2002
4 ай бұрын
Often, when you see a Mirinda warning being given, it ends with the police saying something to the effect of, "do you understand?" I've always wondered what the police's response is if you were to claim you don't understand. And what do they do if you start asking them for legal advice?
@garyclark1135
3 ай бұрын
If you're worried about perjury just preface your testimony with a statement that your memory is not good and you don't want to be held accountable for a lapse of memory or a mistake of memory.
@dispeaking1
3 ай бұрын
When I heard the question, I had a different take on it. I heard, "When you're asked to tell the truth, as in, do you swear to tell the truth, can you say no, as in, no I will not swear to tell the truth.". Now I'm wondering what would happen if you refused to swear to be honest when testifying?
@tedkolterman
4 ай бұрын
JUDGE: DO YOU SWEAR. CURLY : NO ,BUT I KNOW ALL THE WORDS.
@letsgobrandon416
3 ай бұрын
I love Disorder In the Court, one of their best 😂
@DurokSubaka
3 ай бұрын
Put down that hat, raise your right hand, sointney judgey wudgey
@subtledemisefox
3 ай бұрын
@@letsgobrandon416right. My brother and I used to watch that over and over again when we were kids.
@patrickpowers5995
Жыл бұрын
In the UK I once took the oath and later a barrister kept insisting that I answered Yes or No. I asked the bench if I was released from my oath (hiatus ensued) and I pointed out that my oath had been to say the WHOLE truth. and that I did not believe that answering either Yes or No represented the whole truth. I got to say my piece and was never again told to answer just Yes or No.
@billyback1038
Жыл бұрын
Excellent reply. KInd of like the things that are sent to you over the internet now asking about your experience that you had with them but giving only yes and no questions.
@Golddess
4 ай бұрын
Huh, I wonder if that would work for cross exam in the US.
@guyforlogos
3 ай бұрын
Very good answer, and question.
@_Thoughtful_Aquarius_
3 ай бұрын
👏👏👏👏
@GhostHostMemories
2 ай бұрын
Depends on the question. in some instances the question is only asking a yes or no response. "where you in line at the mcdonalds on 4trh street on the night of ##/##?" yes or no is the whole truth to that statement. "What were you doing the night of ##, starting aroud ?" would allow you to elaborate on where you were, and what you were doing at the time. Basically opposing counsel wants to trap you into yes/no answers to paint their side in favorable light" where as your side wants to allow you the ability to provide the picture they want to set.
@RandomAmerican3000
2 жыл бұрын
Reminds me of the old joke : "Do you swear to tell the truth?" "What happens if I lie?" "You'll go to jail for two years." "Then I'm going to lie." "You admit you are going to commit perjury?" "Two years is less than I would get if I told the truth."
@HappilyHomicidalHooligan
2 жыл бұрын
😄😁😆😅😂🤣
@AzraelThanatos
2 жыл бұрын
A lot like the joke about ancient chinese armies. "What's the penalty for being late..." "Death..." What's the penalty for rebelling..." "Death..." "We can't make it ontime..."
@jonathanrabbitt
2 жыл бұрын
I don't think you can claim "double jeopardy" for contempt matters. They could repeatedly drag you back in and attempt to extract your testimony; or leave your sorry ass in the slammer until you cave in.
@mwduck
2 жыл бұрын
Good one.
@mwduck
2 жыл бұрын
Judge: I hold you in contempt. Witness: Sorry, I beat you to it.
@markdaniel8740
6 ай бұрын
"I will be as truthful as a politician "
@IsabelOrtiz-h5y
3 ай бұрын
And a kop
@rodneymoore7270
3 ай бұрын
I am picturing the look on the judges face if you answered so ....
@MonkeyJedi99
3 ай бұрын
As honest as a priest, as sober as a judge. Nevermind, your honor, I can neither lie nor drink that much.
@ofb2632
2 жыл бұрын
Steve, If an attorney only lets you state yes or no, can you ask the judge to allow you to explain since the oath you took says the truth, the WHOLE truth and nothing but the truth. Sometimes a simple yes or no is not the WHOLE truth.
@MsTyrie
2 жыл бұрын
Great question! I want to hear about this. It must come up a lot.
@chuckwingo11
2 жыл бұрын
Would love to hear Steve address this, since I've wondered the same thing.
@pansepot1490
2 жыл бұрын
That’s the movie attorney. I think in a real court you can always turn the the judge and ask them if you can explain before answering. Disclaimer: never been in a court myself but I know that movies usually exaggerate or oversimplify for dramatic purposes.
@DoubleDoubleWithOnions
2 жыл бұрын
"Sir, have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no?"
@jupitercyclops6521
2 жыл бұрын
Do you swear to tell the truth? " I don't swear your honor." Will you tell the truth ? "Tell the truth what?," Will you answer honestly? "Honestly" (knuck knuck knuck)
@stevenmitchell6347
2 жыл бұрын
The courts upheld that Law Enforcement doesn't have to tell the truth and can lie to you yet to lie to them is illegal. This is NOT equal justice under the law.
@James-dq3jo
4 ай бұрын
Law enforcement cannot (legally) commit perjury (lying to the court). They can, however, lie to you under other circumstances (such as during an interrogation).
@James-dq3jo
4 ай бұрын
@@1dash133 Lying to the police is definitely illegal.
@donaldjk1611
4 ай бұрын
Giving a police officer a fake name when they want to identify you is a criminal offense
@eriksmith2514
4 ай бұрын
@@1dash133 I've seen federal courts add time to a sentence if the convicted defendant lied to the police (for obstructing the investigation).
@1dash133
4 ай бұрын
@@eriksmith2514 Context is everything in sentencing hearings. Sorry, I don't connect the dots between lying and the added punishment. You'll need to elaborate.
@dascherofficial
Жыл бұрын
"I don't recall" is a very powerful tool in these situations.
@geraldstone8396
8 ай бұрын
That is the best. Tried and true.
@gaoxiaen1
5 ай бұрын
@@geraldstone8396 Police use it all the time when it's self-serving.
@admthrawnuru
4 ай бұрын
"Your honor, I am intensely stupid and my memory is abysmal. Also where am I and who are you?"
@patrickday4206
4 ай бұрын
Depends on what the definition of is, is ? 😂😂😂 as Bill Clinton once said under oath
@kd7fht
4 ай бұрын
Has to be the best, because the cops use it all the time when they don't want to give up a fellow officer breaking the law.
@SigmaWolf-in2mr
3 ай бұрын
At my age, even the threat of 'life' in prison, is no longer a deterrent.
@ljrandom147
2 ай бұрын
😂, I feel you on that
@I_AM_BAYTOR
Жыл бұрын
I was kicked out of jury duty for being honest. "Would you follow a law you disagree with?" "No."
@therationalanarchist
Жыл бұрын
whichi is odd because juries can acquit based on their conscience and not the law if they choose to do so. It's called nullification. I guess they don't want word getting out that you have the right to overturn a law if you believe it is wrong. It is my personal belief that because of this right, jurors are the single most powerful people in the country for a short period of time....government certainly doesn't want you to know that.
@Chris_at_Home
11 ай бұрын
@@therationalanarchistI served on a grand jury where we would indict people for felonies. I thought it was rigged. The DA told all the sheep to pick a retired trooper to be jury foremen. Then they told us we should just indict everyone and let it go to court. I brought up the fact that we were the people that stop people from going to trial and jail on stupid laws. With my suggestion we didn’t indict a guy. I was relieved of duty. I even wrote the state ombudsman office but never heard back. After that I don’t have any trust in our judicial system. The next time they tried to get me to serve jury duty I told them they were crooked as hell and it’s a waste of my time. I also told them I don’t trust the way they indict people because I had first hand experience on the process. I never got called again.
@anniedh600
10 ай бұрын
How can you be held in contempt. You showed up. You agree to testify. And you are thus fulfilling the court order. You just aren’t swearing that everything you say will be truthful. 😅 They shouldn’t ask it like a question - “ Do you agree…” if agreeing isn’t optional. It’s up to the jury to decide if you’re your testimony was truthful. Also, it’s up to the prosecuting atty to ‘prove’ beyond a reasonable doubt…
@AlfredNewman-ec6zj
4 ай бұрын
I believe this question is asked to remove prospective jurors who would exercise their right to jury nullification.
@lonniebeal6032
4 ай бұрын
Dang, our juror selection didn't ask that. I'd answer, "if it violates the Constitution, no"
@TheMicroTrak
2 жыл бұрын
I asked a child why they thought you need to raise your right hand in court to swear an oath...she responded that this was to show that your fingers were not crossed. Excellent reasoning.
@MrFrazierNation
2 жыл бұрын
Wow. I have full confidence she is going places. 💯👏🏾
@DsLink1306
2 жыл бұрын
How ironic. A child applied a practical purpose. While the adults use it for superstitious purposes. Really paints the big picture.
@hexaarmortaga9957
2 жыл бұрын
@@DsLink1306 that’s the beauty of childhood innocence. The older you get, the more exposed to corruption we become.
@Primalxbeast
2 жыл бұрын
@@DsLink1306 The other hand is on a book that says a dude managed to get a pair of every species on the planet on a little boat and keep them alive to repopulate the entire planet after the planet was completely submerged.
@Eluderatnight
2 жыл бұрын
@@Primalxbeast and the biggest cover story for adultery.
@DCJNewsMedia
4 ай бұрын
I witnessed in open court a man say he couldn't swear by heaven or earth, the judge said can you affirm and the man said it depends. The judge asked on what. The man said i am a man of conscious and can not be made to violate it by a USA Supreme Court Decision and order. But most importantly, God says all men are liars, and he alone is the truth. So that includes ypu, me the DA, etc. So, no man can be honest accordingly to God. So the judge asked him if that was his firmly held belief, and the man said yes, sir. The judge said will you with this understanding do your bedt to be as honest as you can and he said yes... but again, accordingly to God, i just lied again. So the judge ruled that the court could not compel a man to violate his couscous and firmly held belief as it would violate his 1st amendment rights. And the man was dismissed.
@ecollazo67
2 жыл бұрын
I think there's a bigger point being missed here. Saying "no" to the oath is NOT the same as refusing to testify. If I'm called as a witness in a trial and asked to take the oath, I can answer "no" and still continue to testify. The real questions are: Will the judge allow me to testify if I answer "no" during the oath? Can the judge hold me in contempt of court if my resonse to the oath is "no" even though I am not refusing to testify? Does the court have the authority to compel me to be truthful if I answer "no" which itself is a truthful answer if I do not plan to tell the truth?
@aCalmHinduCow
2 жыл бұрын
This was going to be my question as well. I guess I will never know the answer unless I try it and report back.
@SomeIdiota
2 жыл бұрын
In the eyes of the court, saying "no" to the oath IS the same as refusing to testify, despite it technically not being the same thing at all. To answer all three quickly: 1. No. 2. Yes. 3. See #1, you are being compelled the moment you receive the subpoena.
@ecollazo67
2 жыл бұрын
@@SomeIdiota I'm not sure I agree with that. If I'm asked to take the oath and I reply "no" but I tell the judge that I am willing to testify, I don't think the judge can arbitrarily decide to ignore my willingnes to testify.
@SomeIdiota
2 жыл бұрын
@@ecollazo67 It isn't arbitrary, again in the eyes of the court. You are summoned to testify truthfully. Whether or not you do so truthfully is up to you, at your own risk, but the ritual of putting your hand on the bible and saying "Yes," is the entry fee. Doing otherwise is tantamount to saying "I will not testify". I do think that the oath aspect should be altered to have less room for pedantry, because I am on definitely on the side of "If you leave room for me to do something, then do not allow me to do said thing, then what is the point?" A simple "Will you testify to the matters at hand?" should suffice.
@ryledra6372
2 жыл бұрын
@@SomeIdiota The video stated there were ways (declarations) to get around the "oath" (not always sworn over the christian bible) though there was a caveat that it is generally due to it being against a witness' religion; as someone previously religious, I'd be uncomfortable with giving an oath, though this resides as more as a superstition than anything else
@jimmybutler1379
4 ай бұрын
I ANSWERD THE ORDER TO APPEAR I AM READY TO LEAVE !...
@fugitiveunknown7806
3 ай бұрын
My nautural person is here but the corporate entity with the name in capital letters reserves all rights as per the black law book and the shadow proclamation and the order of captain crunch of the gold fringe flag.
@johnjewell219
Жыл бұрын
Hi Steve. You have politicians in USA who are ignoring court orders all the time lately,with no penalty lol . Love your show👍😎
@Hoptronics
4 ай бұрын
You play the odds.. there's a chance you might have to pay the price but the reality is you can skip through the cracks for a long time.
@chickenlittle5916
3 ай бұрын
Years ago courts wouldnt charge my ex for perjury when she was caught lying to get me in trouble and I asked prosecution to charge her!!!!
Пікірлер: 7 М.