Defense attorneys face unfavorable witness testimony on a continued basis.
If a witness' statement is hearsay or is irrelevant and excessively prejudicial, the court may suppress the testimony.
However, the mere fact that a witness can produce damning testimony is not grounds for exclusion.
Since the credibility of witnesses is exclusively a matter for the trier of fact, defense attorneys must discredit the opposing witnesses during a trial.
An attorney can discredit them in several ways.
1.
Inconsistent Statements: The best way to discredit a witness is to use his or her statements against him or her.
It can be years before a case actually proceeds to trial and a witness' story can change several times.
Changes in the story may indicate that the witness is mistaken or that the witness lied at some point about what happened, both of which substantially detract from the their credibility.
2.
Incomplete Statements: They often do not tell the whole truth.
Some witnesses do not wish to get involved, some fear retaliation and some have a prior relationship with the defendant or the victim.
In many situations, witnesses are reluctant to speak with the police.
Many witnesses will initially deny that they have information about an alleged offense or provide a description of what they saw that ignores several critical facts.
If a witness leaves out valuable information, their testimony will seem to be much less trustworthy.
3.
Exaggerated Statements: Some may not be capable of accurately answering questions.
Embellished stories mean that the witness did not actually see what he or she claims to have seen or is attempting to minimize someone's conduct.
If an attorney can prove that a witness exaggerated a claim, the defense attorney can make a credible argument that the witness exaggerated his or her account of the situation.
4.
Motive to Lie: Whether you ask a criminal lawyer in Ellicott City MD or in Eugene OR, you will hear that there are many reasons why a witness would lie.
They are often granted immunity or favorable agreements in exchange for their testimony.
This produces an incentive for the witness to testify to anything that the prosecution believes happened.
Additionally, a witness with a prior dislike for the defendant will have an incentive to see him or her harmed by the criminal justice system.
Whatever the reason, an attorney who can prove that a witness has an incentive to corroborate someone else's story or see the defendant injured will be able to paint the witness as biased and unreliable.
5.
Prior Criminal History: When in doubt, attack the them directly.
This technique must be employed carefully.
Some witnesses are sympathetic to the trier of fact and a direct attack on a vulnerable-looking witness may come across unfavorably.
At the same time, jurors should know about any past history that the witness has with police.
If the witness has been convicted of crimes of moral turpitude or dishonesty, the witness will look much less reliable to the jury.
6.
Lack of Credibility: Painting the witness as a bad person will make them inherently less relatable and trustworthy to jurors.
Jury members are often upstanding members of the community or ordinary citizens briefly pressed into service; many are not sympathetic to gang members, drug user or witnesses with a long history of convictions no matter how trustworthy they might otherwise seem.
It may not be enough to completely discredit a witness, but it can be enough to raise reasonable doubt about their testimony.
When attempting to discredit a witness, defense attorneys should allow the witness to discredit himself or herself.
Many witnesses will provide inconsistent or incomplete accounts of the scene before and during trial.
The attorney must identify and exploit weaknesses in the witness' testimony to make the witnesses less credible.
Attacking the witness directly can be a valuable tactic if the witness is unsympathetic, but must be managed carefully.