2007-01-02 12:49:43 · 4 answers · asked by tlp 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
What do you mean? I assume that witnesses are thinking during, while and after testifying.
Questions like "what did you think about that" probably aren't admissible.
2007-01-02 12:53:12 · answer #1 · answered by Catspaw 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, if a witness said that everyone in the room was holding the gun before the murder, then the fingerprint evidence on the gun becomes less credible.
Or if a police witness talks about the mistakes they made when collecting blood evidence from a glove, for example, then people will downplay the credibility of the glove as evidence and OJ walks free.
2007-01-02 12:52:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of coarse they have. Usually, the testimony of witnesses is what forms opinions in the minds of juries. The more credible the witness, the more convincing his words.
Unless there is concrete proof to suggest otherwise, or fingerprints and/or DNA to support an opposing argument, the eye witness, or character witness is the next best thing.
2007-01-02 12:55:07 · answer #3 · answered by briang731/ bvincent 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only if the witness is reliable and testifies what those thoughts are. However, some thoughts might be considered hearsay!
2007-01-02 12:53:47 · answer #4 · answered by AnnieD 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋