# Should witness testimony be disregarded if it conflicts with self-defense claim for a murder trial? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 12, 2015, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-witness-testimony-be-disregarded-if-it-conflicts-with-self-defense-claim-for-a-murder-trial/709664 "2015-01-12T23:42:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-witness-testimony-be-disregarded-if-it-conflicts-with-self-defense-claim-for-a-murder-trial/709664/101 "2015-01-13T19:51:16Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I’m not (I don’t think) talking about the rules of evidence - I’m not saying that such testimony should not be presented to a jury. At least, it shouldn’t be specifically banned, but it would arguably be unethical to present a case with only that evidence. > > I’m saying that uncorroborated testimony from a potentially biased witness can’t on it’s own prove _anything_ to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. If there’s reason to think the witness might be biased, there’s reason to doubt the testimony. > > What part of that is false? > [@Bricker](#): > > If the record on appeal shows that the only evidence that the jury heard was the testimony of a witness who was biased, what, in your scheme, would the appellate court do? > [@Steophan](#): > > Overturn it, on the grounds that no reasonable jury could have made that decision. The part that’s false is: _uncorroborated testimony from a potentially biased witness can’t on it’s own prove anything to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt._ As a matter of law, that’s false. Again, I recognize that your opinion is otherwise. But in the real world, the actual law used in every state does NOT say that uncorroborated testimony from a potentially biased witness can’t on it’s own prove anything to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. To the contrary, uncorroborated testimony from a potentially biased witness on it’s own can legally serve as sufficient proof for a jury to convict and for that conviction to be upheld on appeal. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-witness-testimony-be-disregarded-if-it-conflicts-with-self-defense-claim-for-a-murder-trial/709664/102 "2015-01-13T19:57:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The part that’s false is: _uncorroborated testimony from a potentially biased witness can’t on it’s own prove anything to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt._ > > As a matter of law, that’s false. Again, I recognize that your opinion is otherwise. But in the real world, the actual law used in every state does NOT say that uncorroborated testimony from a potentially biased witness can’t on it’s own prove anything to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. To the contrary, uncorroborated testimony from a potentially biased witness on it’s own can legally serve as sufficient proof for a jury to convict and for that conviction to be upheld on appeal. Is that specifically written into the law? Because my claim is that if the evidence cannot possibly prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, then any guilty verdict must be overturned. That, I know, is written into law. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-witness-testimony-be-disregarded-if-it-conflicts-with-self-defense-claim-for-a-murder-trial/709664/103 "2015-01-13T20:01:46Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > How can you possibly decide whether it is reasonable without hearing and relying upon eyewitness testimony? > > For example, if fifty or a hundred people say the Accused was belligerent and shot Victim in cold blood in full view of God and everybody, but Accused says, oh no, it was dark and scary, Accused wins. > > You have now given every Accused everywhere in the country a get-out-of-jail-free card. Every single murderer could claim, “oh, I was afraid” and by the rules you set, we would HAVE to acquit them, all of them. You could not introduce any eyewitness testimony to show that the fear was not reasonable, because all of that testimony would be uncorroborated and potentially biased. > > You are setting an impossible standard. (I don’t mean difficult, I mean “cannot be achieved.”) In the scenario described, there is no doubt whatsoever that A killed V, but without eyewitness testimony, what possible rebuttal could there be to “I was afraid”? It was broad daylight? that needs testimony. Victim had no weapon? that needs testimony. Victim was mild and meek and Accused knew it? that needs testimony. The security camera footage is untampered? that needs testimony. > > What evidence of “no, it was not reasonable” would you accept? Stop bringing up hypotheticals involving corroborated, unbiased testimony as if they have anything to do with my argument about uncorroborated, biased testimony. The response to my argument that, in a particular situation, it would be unreasonable to convict is not to bring up a different situation in which it would be reasonable to convict. You are, however, right about one thing. This principle could potentially allow some people to get away with murder. That’s not a problem. People getting away with murder is a far less serious issue that convicting innocent people, or denying people the right to defend themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-witness-testimony-be-disregarded-if-it-conflicts-with-self-defense-claim-for-a-murder-trial/709664/104 "2015-01-13T20:11:52Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Is that specifically written into the law? Because my claim is that if the evidence cannot possibly prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, then any guilty verdict must be overturned. That, I know, is written into law. Yes. What’s specifically NOT present in the law is the concept that uncorroborated testimony from a potentially biased witness can’t on it’s own prove anything to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. In fact, a guilty verdict in which the trial record contained only uncorroborated testimony from a potentially biased witness would stand on appeal. In other words, if a defendant were convicted, and then on appeal correctly pointed out that the only evidence against him at trial was the uncorroborated testimony from a potentially biased witness, the appeals court would say that this evidence, alone, was legally sufficient to convict. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-witness-testimony-be-disregarded-if-it-conflicts-with-self-defense-claim-for-a-murder-trial/709664/105 "2015-01-13T20:16:24Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Steophan View Post > I’m not (I don’t think) talking about the rules of evidence - I’m not saying that such testimony should not be presented to a jury. At least, it shouldn’t be specifically banned, but it would arguably be unethical to present a case with only that evidence. > > I’m saying that uncorroborated testimony from a potentially biased witness can’t on it’s own prove anything to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. If there’s reason to think the witness might be biased, there’s reason to doubt the testimony. > > What part of that is false? Police Officers are sometimes considered biased witnesses in a criminal trial. I have seen hundreds of trials where a defendant is convicted (beyond a reasonable doubt) based on the uncorroborated testimony of police officers. What you’re suggesting would be a wholesale transformation of the way or criminal justice system works. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-witness-testimony-be-disregarded-if-it-conflicts-with-self-defense-claim-for-a-murder-trial/709664/106 "2015-01-13T20:18:15Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Why are you unable to separate your disagreement with me about the particulars of one case from the argument about a principle? > > I believe that the jury should not have convicted Dunn for murder because the only evidence that he wasn’t threatened was the testimony of Davis’ companions. False – there was physical evidence that he wasn’t threatened, and there was the testimony of Dunn’s girlfriend that supported the witness testimony. > [@](#): > > I believe that no case should ever be decided uncorroborated witness statements from potentially biased sources. > > You keep claiming that your disagreement with me about the facts of one specific case has some bearing on the general principle, but refuse to say why. Because you’re violating your own principle in the Dunn case. > [@](#): > > I shall ask again, in the vain hope that you might answer. What is so hard to understand about the principle that no case should ever be decided uncorroborated witness statements from potentially biased sources? I’m not even asking if you agree with it, just what you struggle to understand about that simple statement. That’s not hard to understand (except for the “potentially biased” part – what the hell does that mean? Every human has the potential to be biased). What’s hard to understand is that you go beyond this for the Dunn case and other hypothetical cases discussed. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-witness-testimony-be-disregarded-if-it-conflicts-with-self-defense-claim-for-a-murder-trial/709664/107 "2015-01-13T20:19:50Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > Police Officers are sometimes considered biased witnesses in a criminal trial. I have seen hundreds of trials where a defendant is convicted (beyond a reasonable doubt) based on the uncorroborated testimony of police officers. What you’re suggesting would be a wholesale transformation of the way or criminal justice system works. Yes, indeed one of the points I brought up in one of these threads was the criticism of the police by the same people who are criticising me. I don’t believe that someone should be convicted solely on the word of a police officer ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-witness-testimony-be-disregarded-if-it-conflicts-with-self-defense-claim-for-a-murder-trial/709664/108 "2015-01-13T20:25:31Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > False – there was physical evidence that he wasn’t threatened, and there was the testimony of Dunn’s girlfriend that supported the witness testimony. Nope. > [@](#): > > Because you’re violating your own principle in the Dunn case. Nope. I’m saying that, because there was no evidence other than the potentially biased testimony, he should not have been convicted. That’s not a contradiction of the principle. > [@](#): > > That’s not hard to understand (except for the “potentially biased” part – what the hell does that mean? Every human has the potential to be biased). What’s hard to understand is that you go beyond this for the Dunn case and other hypothetical cases discussed. If every person is potentially biased, then apply this to every witness. Not really an issue. Obviously I disagree with you about how I’m applying the principle, but so what? That’s not relevant, indeed it’s a distraction from the actual issue, which is that you are quite happy for people to be convicted based on uncorroborated witness evidence. It’s rather disturbing how many people are… ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-witness-testimony-be-disregarded-if-it-conflicts-with-self-defense-claim-for-a-murder-trial/709664/109 "2015-01-13T20:28:16Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Nope. Nope to what? That there was physical evidence? That Dunn’s girlfriend testified? That her testimony supported the witnesses contention that there was no shotgun and no reasonable threat to Dunn’s life? Which one are you denying? > [@](#): > > Nope. I’m saying that, because there was no evidence other than the potentially biased testimony, he should not have been convicted. That’s not a contradiction of the principle. Yes it is, because it’s factually false. There was other evidence. Dunn’s girlfriend really did testify – this isn’t a fantasy. Her testimony really did contradict Dunn’s claims and support the witnesses claims. There really was physical evidence. > [@](#): > > If every person is potentially biased, then apply this to every witness. Not really an issue. > > Obviously I disagree with you about how I’m applying the principle, but so what? That’s not relevant, indeed it’s a distraction from the actual issue, which is that you are quite happy for people to be convicted based on uncorroborated witness evidence. It’s rather disturbing how many people are… Straw man. If you think I’ve said I’m happy for people to be convicted based solely on uncorroborated witness evidence, than cite a post in which I say this. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-witness-testimony-be-disregarded-if-it-conflicts-with-self-defense-claim-for-a-murder-trial/709664/110 "2015-01-13T20:36:37Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Straw man. If you think I’ve said I’m happy for people to be convicted based solely on uncorroborated witness evidence, than cite a post in which I say this. A post? You started this whole damn thread about it. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-witness-testimony-be-disregarded-if-it-conflicts-with-self-defense-claim-for-a-murder-trial/709664/111 "2015-01-13T20:38:07Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > A post? You started this whole damn thread about it. No I didn’t. Where in my OP did I state that the witness testimony was the only evidence in the case? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-witness-testimony-be-disregarded-if-it-conflicts-with-self-defense-claim-for-a-murder-trial/709664/112 "2015-01-13T20:39:28Z")
And you’re skipping the questions about the Dunn case again. What are you saying “nope” about? That there was physical evidence? That Dunn’s girlfriend testified? That her testimony supported the witnesses contention that there was no shotgun and no reasonable threat to Dunn’s life? Which one are you denying? ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-witness-testimony-be-disregarded-if-it-conflicts-with-self-defense-claim-for-a-murder-trial/709664/113 "2015-01-13T20:51:48Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > And you’re skipping the questions about the Dunn case again. That’s because the facts of any one particular case aren’t relevant to the principle being discussed. I think the principle is relevant to that case, you disagree. Doesn’t matter, This thread came about because you were incredulous that I could state that I don’t believe people should be convicted based on uncorroborated, potentially biased witness testimony. And no matter how many times I try to get to the root of your incredulity, you just bring up your belief that it’s not relevant to a particular case. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-witness-testimony-be-disregarded-if-it-conflicts-with-self-defense-claim-for-a-murder-trial/709664/114 "2015-01-13T20:56:15Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > That’s because the facts of any one particular case aren’t relevant to the principle being discussed. I think the principle is relevant to that case, you disagree. Doesn’t matter, Sure it matters – it’s part of what’s being debated. You said “nope”, and I asked you what you were denying… why not just clarify it? > [@](#): > > This thread came about because you were incredulous that I could state that I don’t believe people should be convicted based on uncorroborated, potentially biased witness testimony. No it didn’t. When did I say “uncorroborated”? Why are you continuing this straw man? > [@](#): > > And no matter how many times I try to get to the root of your incredulity, you just bring up your belief that it’s not relevant to a particular case. The Dunn case is what started this discussion. If you’re unwilling to discuss the facts of the Dunn case, then we can’t discuss real-world applications of your philosophy. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-witness-testimony-be-disregarded-if-it-conflicts-with-self-defense-claim-for-a-murder-trial/709664/115 "2015-01-13T21:02:15Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The Dunn case is what started this discussion. If you’re unwilling to discuss the facts of the Dunn case, then we can’t discuss real-world applications of your philosophy. Are you acknowledging that my philosophy applies to the Dunn case? Because you’ve spent two threads denying that, and I’m not interested in arguing with you further about that. Either I am right about that case, and he should not have been convicted of murder according to my principles, or I’m not, and it’s irrelevant to this discussion. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-witness-testimony-be-disregarded-if-it-conflicts-with-self-defense-claim-for-a-murder-trial/709664/116 "2015-01-13T22:27:51Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Are you acknowledging that my philosophy applies to the Dunn case? Because you’ve spent two threads denying that, and I’m not interested in arguing with you further about that. I can’t tell if it does – when you say it a certain way, it definitely doesn’t apply to the Dunn case, but then you say “yes, and yes” to **steronz** ’s question about the Dunn case. It’s completely inconsistent due to the facts about the Dunn case. > [@](#): > > Either I am right about that case, and he should not have been convicted of murder according to my principles, or I’m not, and it’s irrelevant to this discussion. So why can’t we discuss this? Are you uninterested in whether or not you were correct? Why don’t we discuss the totality of the evidence? ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-witness-testimony-be-disregarded-if-it-conflicts-with-self-defense-claim-for-a-murder-trial/709664/117 "2015-01-13T22:40:22Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Why don’t we discuss the totality of the evidence? Why? The details of any specific case are irrelevant. No-one should be convicted based on uncorroborated, potentially biased witness testimony. It’s that claim that you keep attacking, that claim you started this thread about, and that claim you keep refusing to address, instead bringing up red herrings about particular cases. Dunn should not have been convicted of murder, in my opinion, because that conviction, again in my opinion, relied on such uncorroborated evidence. Your opinion differs. So what? What relevance does that have to the principle? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-witness-testimony-be-disregarded-if-it-conflicts-with-self-defense-claim-for-a-murder-trial/709664/118 "2015-01-13T22:51:32Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Why? The details of any specific case are irrelevant. No-one should be convicted based on uncorroborated, potentially biased witness testimony. It’s that claim that you keep attacking, that claim you started this thread about, and that claim you keep refusing to address, instead bringing up red herrings about particular cases. Why do you say I keep attacking that claim? When did I attack any claim about uncorroborated evidence? And why do you say “potentially biased”? That’s a pointless descriptor since it applies to all humans. > [@](#): > > Dunn should not have been convicted of murder, in my opinion, because that conviction, again in my opinion, relied on such uncorroborated evidence. Your opinion differs. So what? What relevance does that have to the principle? It’s not an opinion – it’s a fact that the conviction relies on corroborated evidence in multiple forms. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-witness-testimony-be-disregarded-if-it-conflicts-with-self-defense-claim-for-a-murder-trial/709664/119 "2015-01-13T23:05:50Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Why do you say I keep attacking that claim? When did I attack any claim about uncorroborated evidence? Because the only claims I am making are about uncorroborated or biased evidence, and you keep arguing with me. I am making no claims about what should happen when the testimony is corroborated, or the witness is shown to be unbiased. > [@](#): > > And why do you say “potentially biased”? That’s a pointless descriptor since it applies to all humans. Not at all. If I witness events between two people I don’t know, and have no feelings for or opinions about, I’m unbiased. If someone accuses my friend of something, I’m quite possibly biased. > [@](#): > > It’s not an opinion – it’s a fact that the conviction relies on corroborated evidence in multiple forms. So you keep claiming. So why keep bringing it up when we’re talking about uncorroborated evidence? That’s all I’ve been talking about. Your disagreement with me about whether some specific evidence was corroborated has nothing ton do with the value of uncorroborated testimony. Why do you keep acting as though ot does? ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2015, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-witness-testimony-be-disregarded-if-it-conflicts-with-self-defense-claim-for-a-murder-trial/709664/120 "2015-01-13T23:05:52Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Stop bringing up hypotheticals involving corroborated, unbiased testimony as if they have anything to do with my argument about uncorroborated, biased testimony. > > The response to my argument that, in a particular situation, it would be unreasonable to convict is not to bring up a different situation in which it would be reasonable to convict. The hypotheticals I’ve introduced specifically involve UNcorroborated and potentially biased testimony, the exact kind of testimony you want the jury to disregard. If fifty people testify that the light was on, there’s still no corroborating physical evidence, and all fifty of them are potentially biased. This is precisely the evidence that you have declared would be unreasonable to use as the basis of conviction. Why would it be reasonable to convict in these circumstances, given the standard of review you yourself have promulgated? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-witness-testimony-be-disregarded-if-it-conflicts-with-self-defense-claim-for-a-murder-trial/709664.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-witness-testimony-be-disregarded-if-it-conflicts-with-self-defense-claim-for-a-murder-trial/709664.md?page=7)