918-550-9175

Facebook

Twitter

LinkedIn

Free Evaluation
logo
mobile logo
 

testimony Tag

17 January
0 Comments
Sticky

Discrediting Eyewitness Testimony

Posted by Clint
in Blog
Discrediting Eyewitness Testimony

At a criminal trial, the prosecution and defense work hard to discredit eyewitness testimony offered by the opposing side. The effect of discrediting the observations of a key witness in front of a jury can be extremely influential in a case’s outcome. Lawyers use numerous techniques to show that an eyewitness is unreliable, some of which are outlined here. Questioning About the Accuracy of a Witness’s Memory One of the most powerful ways to discredit an eyewitness involves questioning the accuracy of that witness’s memory. For example, a lawyer might ask whether the witness was under the influence of any drugs or...

Continue reading
05 January
0 Comments
Sticky

What Is Impeachment Evidence?

Posted by Clint
in Blog
What Is Impeachment Evidence

In criminal cases, lawyers use various types of evidence to question the accuracy of witnesses’ testimony. The process is called impeachment. Various different kinds of impeachment evidence may show that a witness is not being truthful, such as if prior statements to the police contradict testimony on the stand, or that a witness was not able to observe what happened, such as if the witness has poor vision. Oklahoma law permits lawyers to use specific types of evidence for impeachment purposes. Lawyers may question the witness they are trying to impeach, or they may question a different person to impeach a...

Continue reading
29 December
0 Comments
Sticky

Anonymous Witnesses in Criminal Cases

Posted by Clint
in Blog
Anonymous Witnesses in Criminal Cases

Do you have the right to confront anonymous witnesses used by the prosecution in a criminal trial? A recent federal court case posed this question when anonymous witnesses testified in court. At the trial, several witnesses testified against the accused, who allegedly smuggled an illegal immigrant across state lines. The prosecution claimed that these witnesses faced a safety risk by testifying, so their true names and identities were concealed from the accused and her attorney. While her attorney was able to cross-examine the witnesses and received information about their criminal histories and the benefits they received from assisting law enforcement, the...

Continue reading
15 December
0 Comments
Sticky

Your Right to Confront Witnesses in Court

Posted by Clint
in Blog
Your Right to Confront Witnesses in Court

When facing criminal charges, you have the right to confront the witnesses testifying against you. The Sixth Amendment reads: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him”. In practice, this means that tape recordings and written statements are no substitute for questioning witnesses in court. The pivotal case of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), illustrates why the Confrontation Clause in the Sixth Amendment is so important for criminal defendants. In the case, a criminal defendant’s wife gave a statement to the police that was tape-recorded. The wife refused...

Continue reading
04 December
0 Comments
Sticky

Lying Under Oath and DUI Defendants

Posted by Clint
in Blog
Lying Under Oath and DUI Defendants

Perjury, or lying under oath, is a crime in Oklahoma and the rest of the United States. The strongest defense to perjury is that the statement made was actually the truth. Oklahoma defines perjury as follows: “Whoever, in a trial, hearing, investigation, deposition, certification or declaration, in which the making or subscribing of a statement is required or authorized by law, makes or subscribes a statement under oath, affirmation or other legally binding assertion that the statement is true, when in fact the witness or declarant does not believe that the statement is true or knows that it is not true...

Continue reading
22 November
0 Comments
Sticky

Challenging Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test Administration

Posted by Clint
in Blog
Challenging Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test Administration

People charged with DUIs can and do challenge Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test administration. The Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test (HGN test) is one of the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs) given to suspected drunk drivers at the roadside by law enforcement. To determine how to challenge HGN test administration, learn how the test is administered and then how police officers do it incorrectly. How is the HGN test correctly administered? The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration provides law enforcement with guidelines on administering the HGN test. This article only summarizes the detailed guidelines. First, the officer should instruct the driver to place his feet...

Continue reading
06 November
0 Comments
Sticky

What Is the Daubert Standard and Why Does It Matter for DUI Cases?

Posted by Clint
in Blog
What Is the Daubert Standard and Why Does It Matter for DUI Cases?

The Daubert standard for evaluation of expert witness testimony becomes very important in DUI defenses based on scientific evidence. Use of scientific experts is on the rise in DUI defense, but more than half the battle is getting an expert before the court in the first place. When prosecutors try to exclude an expert witness’s testimony, the trial court uses the Daubert standard (as adopted by Oklahoma) to decide whether to allow it into court. The Daubert standard comes from a Supreme Court case, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). In the case, the court created a...

Continue reading
20 September
0 Comments
Sticky

Exclusion of Identification Evidence at Trial

Posted by Clint
in Blog
Exclusion of Identification Evidence at Trial

Exclusion of identification evidence at trial can be a turning point for a criminal case. Getting the judge to agree that alleged eyewitnesses should not testify that they saw the defendant at the scene of the crime requires an evaluation of all the circumstances of the identification. In a 1977 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States explained the test for excluding identification evidence. The decision, Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977), confirmed earlier case law in explaining why a police officer viewing a single photograph and then making an in-court identification did not violate the Due Process Clause...

Continue reading
19 July
0 Comments
Sticky

Problems with Identification Testimony in Oklahoma

Posted by Clint
in Blog
Problems with Identification Testimony in Oklahoma

There are many ways to challenge identification testimony in court, because eyewitness statements are inherently unreliable tools to establish people’s identities. Numerous studies show that witnesses misidentify people in lineups and in the courtroom for many different reasons. In recent years, challenges to convictions based on mistaken eyewitnesses have resulted in many innocent people freed. Some common problems with eyewitness testimony: Witnesses are distracted by weapons, moving vehicles, or clothing (like a hat pulled down low) Poor lighting at the scene, or poor vision on the part of the witness Stress and anxiety during the crime and afterward Witness bias or...

Continue reading
21 June
0 Comments
Sticky

Sobriety Test Evidence at Trial

Posted by rainmakeradmin
in Blog
Sobriety Test Evidence at Trial

In Oklahoma, sobriety test evidence generally is admissible at trial. However, the validity of this evidence and of expert opinions on a driver’s intoxication can be challenged on a number of grounds. For example, tests may not have been administered correctly, equipment may be flawed, or experts may not be qualified to testify. Admission of Testimony Regarding SFTSs Although Standardized Field Sobriety Tests administered on the roadside to a suspected drunk driver are generally accepted nationwide, the highest Oklahoma criminal court has said that they are not true scientific tests. Anderson v. State, 2010 OK CR 27, 252 P.3d 211. In response,...

Continue reading