[Spoiler for the 2012 film *Flight* starring Denzel Washington]
There is a scene in the 2012 film Flight where, after giving some very important sworn testimony at a hearing, the subject admits (truthfully) to being high and drunk at that very moment.
But would that hold up? Does being drunk and/or high invalidate sworn testimony? What if I sign a contract while drunk and/or high? What actions, if any, are nullified if at least one of the people involved is drunk and/or high during their performance? Are you sick of reading “drunk and/or high”?
Not necessarily. It certainly opens one up to questions regarding the veracity of their statement, but it does not automatically invalidate said testimony.
As for invalidating a contract signed while intoxicated, see Lucy v. Zehmer:
“The mental assent of the parties is not requisite for the formation of a contract.”
Granted, it’s not wholly cut-and-dry as that, even in that specific case, but it’s a starting point.
I’m guessing it goes to reliability of the witness. I suppose part of the implication is that they may not remember things correctly also if they were drunk at the time of the incident they are being questioned about, and implies any denial they were back then is unreliable. I suppose how intoxicated the person seems is going to affect how judge or jury feel about the validity of the testimony, or the fact that he hides it well on the stand will help prove “no he did not appear intoxicated during the event” is not necessarily an indicator he was not.
OTOH if being drunk is an element of the crime (such as DUI or FUI) then the fact that even during the testimony they cannot refrain from drinking may help prove the point.
For example, the language in a will is often portrayed as, “Being of sound mind and body…”. That would seem to mean the person was not mentally impaired.
But, IANAL…this is not a hill I will fight over. Just surprising to me that someone can enter a contract while mentally impaired.
That was supposed to be that a person who was so far gone they had no idea what was actually happening obviously can’t consent. the MeToo and others have twisted this almost to the point (or beyond) that the least bit of alcohol in a woman’s system invalidates any consent.
Of course judging how far gone someone is and whether they can give meaningful consent, except in extremely obvious circumstances, is sufficiently difficult that the result is “proceed at your own risk.”
Every time I’ve been on jury duty, the judge has explained that it’s up to the jury to decide what testimony to believe.
Once when I was called for jury duty, there was a witness who had been drinking, and the prospective jurors were asked about their attitudes about alcohol, including whether we thought being drunk would invalidate the testimony of a witness. I took from this that such testimony would not be automatically excluded. I wasn’t selected for the jury, so I don’t know what the actual testimony was, nor how drunk the witness was.
I would expect the opposing lawyer to try to impeach a witness who was drunk at the time of the events he or she was testifying about. I’d also think a lawyer would take this into consideration when deciding to use a witness. It can hurt your case to use witnesses the jury won’t believe. The level of intoxication would have something to do with it. Someone who had one drink would be more believable than someone who was falling-down drunk.
So, in short, I don’t think being drunk or high automatically invalidates sworn testimony.
But there’s the problem. I drink and I can drink six beers over a few hours and still be very level-headed. But I know some people who two beers will make them loopy.
There is a spectrum and it is not a well defined one that describes how mentally impaired a person is. Every person is different.
We do not generally accept a will being changed when grandma is on her deathbed for good reason.
I think the question is how impaired a person is and if a court thinks it matters. One beer? Not so much. A day of binge drinking…probably matters.
I suspect this needs to be fought on a case-by-case basis since there is not really a bright-line the court can use. Lots of gray area.
As a non-lawyer I was surprised by this and followed your link to the Wikipedia article. As I read it, this case is not about whether a contract concluded while drunk is binding. It’s about whether you can claim that you were only joking when you signed it. The court found that it doesn’t matter if you were joking, if a reasonable person would assume that the contract was real. This finding would seem to apply regardless of whether you were drunk or sober.
On another point, I think there is a trope in TV and film where a character is disregarded or disbelieved if they report a serious and urgent matter while drunk. For example, a character known to be the “town drunk” rushes to the police, flustered and red-faced, to tell them he has seen a group of people kidnapping a person at gunpoint. The police laugh at him and say “go home, you’re drunk again”. This makes no sense except maybe to heighten tension and advance the plot.
I did not read the cite, but I suppose there’s a big difference between the drunk person appearing generally normal, versus the drunk person stumbling about, sliding off their chair, and forgetting what they were doing halfway through signing their name.
Again what would the reasonable person think while watching the proceedings? IMO looks sober = is sober, practically speaking.
I was on a jury in which this exact scenario occurred. Two people who were drinking and doing drugs witnessed a crime and immediately reported it to the police. Although the witnesses were clearly intoxicated, we believed them, in part because they were separated, and both gave substantially similar accounts of the events, in part just because they made the effort to contact the police immediately following the incident, in spite of the fact that they were drunk/high and that it was likely to lead to their arrest. One of the witnesses testified in an orange jump suit with chains on his ankles, although we were instructed not to draw any inference from those facts.
This is all great stuff and I realize I sidetracked myself a bit in the OP with my follow-up questions, but what about the case where the witness is drunk while giving testimony, at that very moment? Would it be admissable? Would it potentially be contempt of court?
IANAL. For US criminal proceedings, I believe the determination is whether the witness is a material witness. A material witness can be compelled to testify, subject to their constitutional rights - especially the fifth amendment, including by being detained to ensure they arrive at court to provide their testimony. I’d expect that if a material witness showed up at a criminal court too drunk/high to testify, their testimony would be postponed and they’d be detained until they could provide sober testimony.
My understanding is that a non-material witness is someone who didn’t witness the crime, but is interpreting elements of the crime and providing their analysis or opinion to the court. Their proviso for their testimony is their experience and their expertise. I think if they showed up drunk/high, their testimony would be excluded and jurors would be told to disregard it. However if that testimony was meant to support a key point of the prosecution/defence, the opposing party could address that that point had not been proven.
As to contempt of court, don’t judges have lots of latitude to decide what is contemptuous behavior? I think if a judge thought a witness was trying to avoid testifying by showing up drunk, it would be considered contempt. Otherwise, it would depend on the judge’s opinion on how far the drunk/high defendant had wasted the court’s time.