Not everyone has the same interpretation of a specific event. The observers’ different perspectives can lead to different recollections. Furthermore, the capacity of a persona’s memory can decline over time. Consequently, in a courtroom, the judge could struggle to detect introduction of a lie into a statement that had been given as sworn testimony.
The evidence might reveal the veracity, or lack of veracity in a witness’ statement.
Personal Injury Lawyer in Belleville knows that a judge would only admit irrefutable evidence. No one could question the veracity of video footage. For that reason, judges normally allow a display of such footage.
A judge’s approach to available materials could be far different, if a plaintiff had sought to use a statement from a non-neutral witness. If a plaintiff had sought compensation for lost or damaged property, a judge might agree to look at the bill of sale, from the time when the same item had been purchased.
If a dog-owning plaintiff had alleged that he or she was not liable for an injury that had been caused by a dog attack, a judge would study the state’s regulations. Did the state follow the dictates of a one-bite policy, or did the state adhere to the rules in a strict liability law?
A judge ruling on a medical malpractice lawsuit would expect both sides to offer high quality evidence. That would mean the presentation of testimony from an expert. An expert for the plaintiff would need to show that the physician had failed to follow standard and accepted practices. Any experts for the defendant would need to prove that the doctor/defendant had followed the available rules for performance of his/her specific task.
Safeguards for plaintiffs
Take part in extensive preparation. Use the discovery session, in order to learn what a selected witness plans to say on the witness stand. If, during a trial, a witness chose to change his or her statement, the evidence of such an inconsistency would serve to weaken the presented statement.
This safeguard would not exist in a small claims court. It would only have relevance during a courtroom trail.
Safeguards for witnesses
Witnesses are protected from civil liability, unless it can be shown that a given witness had accepted money, in exchange for a promise to make a certain statement.
The jurors’ perception of a piece of evidence could influence the jury’s decision.
Facts that might seem obvious to those providing support for either party could work to confuse the members of the jury. If that were to be the case, then the jurors might decide to disregard those same facts. That decision could have a huge effect on the jury’s final verdict.
There is no safeguard against a jury’s incorrectly formed perception.