Are potential witnesses required to answer lawyer's questions pre-trial?

Situation:

Alvin and Bill are neighbors who haven’t gotten along forever. Minor hassling over whose garbage wasn’t well enough secured, whose music is too loud, who cuts their grass too early on Saturday, whose kids trespass…you know the crap that happens when two stubborn guys get one of those feuds going, and neither is willing to ever apologize or simple turn the other cheek to break the tit for tat cycle. The ‘offenses’ get worse and more blatant as time goes on.

Finally some breaking point is reached, a punch is thrown, and when it ends we have two faily battered guys – one with a couple broken bones (rib & fingers), the other with a smashed nose and a lost tooth, both needing stitches. Nothing life threatening or maiming, I hasten to add.

One of their wives called the cops, but the fight was over by the time they arrived. They talked to both guys, each claimed the other started it, apparently the wife had been indoors when it started so could say what had happened. I don’t know the details, but it has come down to Alvin and Bill each accusing the other of battery and suing for pain and medical bills and whatever else their lawyers could think of. (This is guy vs. guy, not state vs. guy … I assume this means the police/whoever decided there was no way to know who was ‘in the wrong’ or maybe it was too minor a hassle to be bothered taking to trial.)

Now, unknown to anyone at the time, a third neighbor happened to have witnessed the start of the fight from inside her house. Let’s call her, oh, SBS will do. :frowning:

SBS happens to think BOTH Alvin and Bill have been acting like immature brats for months. Emotionally on the level of toddlers: you took my ball, I’ll kick sand in your eyes, waaa! you hit me with your shovel… SBS has no particular love or hate for either, but SBS plans to keep living in the neighborhood, and as best she knows, so do Alvin and Bill …and, clearly, neither Alvin or Bill are guys you want to have actively hating you. So SBS decided to keep her mouth shut and keep out of it.

However, she didn’t decide that soon enough. :frowning: She had (stupidly) made a comment to another neighbor (unrelated to Alvin or Bill) during a gossip session the day after, and what she’d said made it clear she’d seen the fight. Or at least, some of it, she didn’t come out and say anything like “I saw X hit Y and then…” just “God, it was awful, I never saw two men fighting like that in real life before.”

“Somehow” the fact that SBS might be a witness eventually made it to the ears of one of the lawyers, and she’s been getting messages left on her answering machine.

That’s my situation. So far I haven’t returned the calls. My question is, do I have to answer questions asked by a lawyer in this situation? Can I just refuse to talk to him completely? I realize I could be subpoenaed, and would be required to testify in court, but exposure to a zillion years of movie/TV lawyering has left the impression that lawyers don’t like to question a witness in court unless they have already gone over everything with them and know what the witness will say.

Well, if I don’t talk to him before the trial, he won’t know, will he? In fact, he won’t know the most critical thing, that is, who I’m going to say threw the initial punch if I ever have to say. Maybe it’s his guy I’d finger.
In those circumstances, would the lawyer just give up on using me for a witness eventually?

Beside, like I said, both Alvin and Bill did everything they could to build this feud up until it became a fight, and I think morally they’re pretty much equally guilty and I really, really, wish they’d just drop both suits and GROW UP.
And leave me out of it.

I am a lawyer, but not your lawyer, and probably not even licensed in your jurisdiction. If you have a specific question you need answered, you should consult a local lawyer.

As a general matter, in the U.S. a person is not required to talk to a private lawyer about a private lawsuit (rules may be different for governmental investigators and lawyers in some circumstances). However, if a person is served with a judicial subpoena (which may be issued by lawyers in most jurisdictions), that person must comply with the subpoena. Subpoenas may require a person to give testimony or to provide documents, records or other things (or both).

A lawyer (or court official) may issue a subpoena for someone to testify at a trial/judicial hearing or to testify at a pre-trial examination, also known as a deposition or examination before trial (EBT). The deposition will most likely be at a lawyer’s office with a court report and/or video/audio tape recording. The witness must testify under oath and answer all relevant questions (unless protected by privilege or some other legal exclusion).

When a lawyer says that he or she shouldn’t have a witness testify at trial if he or she doesn’t know what the witness will say, the usual way to find out witnesses’ testimony in a civil suit is to take a pre-trial deposition.

Good luck.

I was involved in a situation somewhat similar to yours. An individual was involved in a lawsuit with an ex-employer. That individual had done some contract work for me before, and I had done business with the employer through my company. Both lawyers contacted me and asked if I’d speak to them. I told both lawyers that the only way I’d talk to them was if I was subpoenad, and that they really didn’t want to have my comments about their client on the record. Both of them went away.

You can tell a lawyer that you won’t talk to him, but if he comes back with a subpoena from a judge, you had better start talking or you’ll end up in jail for contempt of court.

So what if Alvin’s lawyer subpeonas SBS for a deposition and during that questioning it comes out that SBS saw Alvin throw the first punch. So obviously Alvin’s lawyer doesn’t want SBS testifying at the trial. Is it up to Bill’s lawyer to track her down in his own investigation or does the transcription of that deposition get sent to the other party? Disclosure or discovery or something lilke that?

Before the deposition is taken, the party asking for (“noticing”) the deposition must notify all parties to the action in sufficient time before the deposition to permit them to attend. So Bill’s lawyer would be at the deposition, and would call SBS at trial. Or, more likely, use the deposition transcript to force a settlement.

In my experience, it’s more pleasant to talk to a lawyer privately than to be subpoenaed. That’s not because lawyers want to punish recalcitrant witnesses (although of course they’ll be more solicitous of someone who is doing them a favor than someone they have to subpoena), but because depositions are a big hassle, and you may not wish to answer certain questions (which you can’t always choose to do upon subpoena). Plus, you should certainly have a lawyer if you’re deposed, but if you really have nothing to do with the case a mere interview might not require your own counsel.

Moreover, if all parties have access to all facts, there’s a greater chance of “justice” being done (whatever that means in this context). That’s something people in society should care about, although you certainly need to decide its relative importance given what you know about Alvin and Bill. Of course, if you fear a physical altercation between one of them and yourself, you should contact the police.

Finally, providing information to attorneys for each party enables the attorneys to evaluate the true strength of their case as viewed by someone other than their biased client. There’s a chance full information will make a trial less likely and less hassle for everyone. That is by no means a certain outcome, though, only a possibility.

–Cliffy

P.S. I am not your lawyer. The above is not meant as legal advice, and I am not competent to render legal advice to you. I am probably not licensed to provide legal advice in your jurisdiction, I have nothing near the required familiarity with the facts, and I do not know the appropriate law in your jurisdiction. You are not my client. I am not your lawyer.

If you want to stay out of this but don’t want to dodge the lawyers, there’s a rather easy way: simply come across as totally ditzy and unreliable. Talk at great length about what you saw, dwelling on generalities. Tell each lawyer that his client was hit by the other, but certainly deserved it due to the provocation he gave.

“Yes, Mr. Lawyer, I saw Alvin hit Bill and it was terrible, really terrible. Of course after what Bill did to Alvin who could blame him but I really think that Bill deserves some compensation for what hapened to him but of course so does Alvin because he suffered real bad but probably no worse than Bill because Alvin was really nasty but of course that was probably because of what Bill said and did.” And so on.

You can easily do this without ever saying anything that’s untrue. And no lawyer worth his salt would call such a witness.

Since the lawyer is billing his client $125 plus expenses, what’s to say that your time isn’t worth $125 per hour, also? It’ll be one of the disagreeable neighbors who ends up footing the bill, so just agree to talk to the lawyer for adequate compensation. If you’re really good, you get the lawyers from both sides to pay you. And since it’s not really truly your time that they’re paying for but for information, charge them both for your time (in providing the information) at the same time, since both are receiving it.

Or are my figures for an hour of lawyer-time way too low?

Thank you for the replies, especially the ones from the lawyers (and, yes, you are not my lawyers, etc.!)

I decided to bite the bullet and called back the lawyer who was leaving the messages. We had a pretty brief chat on the phone, during which I told him (truthfully) that there was no doubt in my mind that it was his client who had thrown the first punch. We went over how I happened to see this (I was doing ironing, that is, bored, and easily distracted by the sound of two guys shouting at each other across the street), how clearly I could see, etc. He thanked me, and said he would contact me if he had any further questions, but it didn’t sound like he expected to.
Hopefully that’s the end of it.

Can you take the 5th Amendment? start out by saying that “I may have seen something, but I’m not sure of what i saw, and I’m not certain about the date or time”.
That’ll floor him…then start talking about the green aliens you saw last night…
I like the idea about dicussing billing with the lawyer 9before you agree to speak with him). hell, expert witnesses get paid-why shouldn’t you?

The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination in criminal matters. Since according to the scenario described SBS is in no legal jeopardy the Fifth Amendment would not apply.

IANAL etc.

NQR.

E.g., http://www.divorcesource.com/research/dl/divorcelaws/94jan15.shtml

The real problem with invoking the 5th in this case is that answering questions about what you saw has zero probability of subjecting you to prosecution. Of course, you might have been doing something horrific at the time, and if so, you could take the fifth when asked those questions. For example,

Q: Who threw the first punch?
A. It was him (indicating).
Q: How do you know it was him?
A: I saw the whole thing.
Q: Where where you when you saw it?
A: I invoke the protections provided me under the Fifth Amendment and the right against self-incrimination provided in the state constitution. [The answer was–I was raping my landlady in my front yard, and was therefore keeping a careful lookout].

The law on paying non-expert witnesses varies from state to state.

Compare http://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_opinions/ri-117.htm
*with *http://www.cobar.org/group/display.cfm?GenID=1824

A good lawyer would refuse to pay you because doing so would compromise your credibility. If I were preparing a case and located a witness who asked for money, I would try to make my case without that witness. If the other side listed the witness on their witness list, I would then have to decide whether I wanted to risk preserving testimony that could be adverse.

What does “NQR” mean?

Presumably “not quite right”.

I stuill don’t see why I should not get paid for testifying…the lawyer makes big buck, the judge gets paid…why is MY time worth nothing? I think I should be paid for my trouble-I don’t see why that would affect the quality of my testimony. To my mind, it would be WORTH MORE, as opposed to somebodie’s statements off the street.

I agree with very little of you have to say about the legal system, but this seems especially nonsensical. How does this logically follow?

Lawyers often try very hard to accomodate witnesses, so it’s wrong to say your time is worth nothing. Why you don’t get paid is a different matter. As a witness, you have a civic responsibility to assist the legal system to reach a just result. Lawyers and judges do too, which is why we don’t get paid when we testify, either. But when working in our professional capacities, we are not motivated solely by civic responsibility any more than you are when you go to work.

–Cliffy

Yes.

Actually, your paid testimony would be worth *less *than unpaid testimony, especially to the side that was paying you. A counterintuitive result, surely, but that is what happens. If I pay you to testify, the other side will ask about your compensation and argue that you are only testifying for the money. It happens with expert witnesses all the time. More important, the lawyer does not have to pay you to testify. You can be subpoenaed. A lawyer can subpoena an expert witness, but can’t compel “expert” testimony–only fact testimony. So the expert witness has an advantage over you in their ability to demand compensation.