I can’t think of a good example to express it, but I think “the whole truth” means “I won’t lie by omission via an incomplete answer.”
The oath in most courtrooms I’ve been in simply require the witness to swear or affirm that their testimony will be true. The “whole truth” (where it is used) doesn’t mean the witness has to say *everything *that is true. That would be impossible.
Defendants rarely testify at trial, usually testimony is given by people who have some knowledge of the crime rather than the accused.
I’m not positive but I have heard that in the U.K. the defendant is actually permitted to lie if he is on stand.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
The person on trial is not obligated to say anything at all, as per the Fifth Amendment.
The “point” of taking an oath is partially ceremonial and procedural, but it also lets the person under oath understand that there are serious consequences for lying on the stand.
For some people, the Oath does exactly what it is intended to do: it puts them under the compulsion of telling the truth or facing the eventual wrath of God. I expect that percentage grows smaller yearly.
For some people, the Oath does exactly what the people intend in having you swear or affirm it: it notifies you that we expect you to tell the truth, and you will feel some onus to do so, because you want to do what it right.
For some people, the Oath accomplishes a good goal, even if it doesn’t do what it’s intended to do: it reminds you that the Court expects you to tell the truth, and, while it makes no direct reference, puts in your mind that lying in court has potential consequences.
For some people, the Oath accomplishes little or nothing. But for those people, there’s not much that would get them to testify truthfully, so it does not harm to have them swear or affirm it.
Of course, if you have been subpoenaed, the subpoena already warned you that your testimony was subject to prosecution for perjury if you lie; that’s the “poena” (Latin for penalty) part of the name of the document requiring you show up.
What if the attorneys deliberately don’t ask something that the witness feels the jury needs to know in order to fairly decide the case? Let’s say Party A is suing Party B for injuries suffered in a traffic accident. The witness knows that Party A was not wearing a seatbelt. I’d say the jury in deciding what to award in damages has a right to know that. After all, some of Party A’s injuries may be due to his or her own behavior.
If the witness knows some important piece of information that will be material to the case, and they really really want the jury to know that information, but they’re not asked the question by one of the lawyers, then I guess the witness is totally screwed and justice will never be done.
Unless…well, it’s crazy…the other lawyer could maybe ask the question?
Why is this witness being called? He is being called by one party, or the other party, to provide information to the judge or jury. Alice is suing Bob for injuries. Alice calls Carol as a witness.
“Did you see Bob smash into Alice YES OR NO?”
“Yes, but…”
“NO FURTHER QUESTIONS!”
<Carol breaks down sobbing at the injustice>
Except then Bob’s law talking guy gets up.
“Was Alice wearing a seatbelt?”
“No”
<Alice breaks down sobbing at the injustice of the other attorney being able to ask questions>
If you don’t think it’s important to tell the truth, then of course you can lie when you say you’re going to tell the truth. It’s kind of dumb to tell the Judge that you’re planning on lying, it seems a better plan would be to make just one more lie, and make a lying promise to tell the truth.
An oath or affirmation is just a reminder that you’re supposed to tell the truth in court. Obviously such a reminder is not very useful with witnesses who plan on lying anyway. So what? The little ceremony can have a have a strong influence on some people, and it only takes 10 seconds.
The purpose of an oath is vaguely similar to signing a contract.
Pre-oath, your words (usually) have little legal consequence. Post-oath, your words have serious legal consequences.
Pre-contract, you could say whatever “Oh sure, I’ll pay $2,000 a month in rent.” Post-contract, once you’ve signed your name on the dotted line, you are now legally compelled to do what you said you’d do.
Are they ***not ***allowed to volunteer info? 
I would think that, “Yes, Your Honor, Kevin shot Jason, but it was because Jason was threatening him with a knife and had previously threatened to disembowel him” would totally be in accordance with the spirit of the “the whole truth” thing.
I’ve seen that in movies and TV, the witness is prohibited from giving complete answers sometimes, being forced to say things while omitting crucial context, essentially turning their answers into lies…but I’ve assumed it’s probably not the case in reality. I have no idea whether this assumption is accurate though, I just know that most of these dramatic things I see about courtrooms in movies and TV are probably inaccurate.
I would indeed be curious to know whether that’s really the case: can lawyers demand a context-free answer from the witness? And in the (presumably unlikely, but still possible) event that the other lawyer doesn’t question them on it, can the witness do anything? Is the witness permitted to tell the judge something along the lines of ‘your honor, if I answer that question without context, I would be violating my oath to tell the whole truth.’?
The oath obliges me to tell “the whole truth”, but then the judge obstructs me from telling the whole truth, shushing any part that falls in the extremely broad category of “inadmissible evidence”, and even admonishing me for telling the whole truth as I know it to be, for which I can even be held in contempt.
The reason I am on the witness stand is because I know the truth. The reason the judge is on the bench is to obstruct the jury from hearing the truth.
If you really believe this is how courtrooms work, either you don’t work in courtrooms, or you have a very warped view of the work you’ve done in them. :dubious:
As others have stated, the adversarial system is designed so that one party or the other will bring in evidence that they think will help. If no one asks, the witness should not volunteer. Especially, like in your example, the fact the witness might want to blurt out is inadmissible.
Patterson v. Horton, 84 Wn. App. 531, 541, 929 P.2d 1125, 1130 (1997)
Someday, one day, I may be as deeply cynical as you.
That’s exactly why I brought it up. It’s my understanding that this is the law in Illinois because personal injury lawyers have a strong lobby. I think it’s wrong, and I think the jury has the right to know if the plaintiff was wearing a seatbelt or not.
I hope I’m never a witness in such case, but if I were, what would happen if I volunteered that snippet of information? I suspect the judge would instruct the jury to disregard that information, but of course, as lawyers themselves are apt to say, “you can’t unring the bell.”
You are correct that there are different rules in different states, and that IL excludes such evidence. I agree with you that it is wrong. Not sure that the PI lobby is the reason. I think such laws are holdovers from before seatbelts were as widely used/required. I’ve read/heard some arguments that I don’t quite grok as to the duty of care as opposed to the duty to mitigate damages. Comparative vs contributory fault can further complicate things.
I may be wrong, but my understanding is that the primary reason airbags explode so violently is that they are set to protect an unbelted adult male. :rolleyes: I could imagine supporting a argument going so far as t hold that if you are so stupid as to not be wearing your seatbelt, you are barred from any recovery in ANY circumstances- hell, even if the other driver was drunk and intentionally aimed at your car! 