Personal Injury Lawyer in Cayuga assess the credibility of the statements that have come from each witness.
Elements that add to a statement’s credibility
A neutral witness made statement
—That was someone that was not connected to the driver.
—That was someone that had no financial interest in the outcome for the case.
A clear statement might work to increase the credibility of the testimony from one of the other witnesses. A statement’s clarity might be used to jog the member of someone that has been scheduled to testify.
Willingness to expand on a given point, when questioned about same point
Reluctance to give an opinion, instead of a known fact
An unblemished background; the absence of any earlier attempts to tarnish the reputation of the person that has been called to testify
The time at which a witness appears should not affect his/her credibility
Personal Injury Lawyer Cayuga know that some witnesses feel reluctant to come forward until after the involved drivers have left the scene.
Realize that a pedestrian or a bicycle rider might have viewed a significant meeting or transaction. Maybe someone could direct the victim to the source of video footage.
—That source might be a store
—That source might be a parking lot
—That source might be an ATM machine
—That source could be a nursing home, or a similar facility
Elements that could damage a witness’ credibility
• Providing inconsistent details
• Displaying a hostile attitude
• Evidence showing that the witness had a poor vantage point
• Evidence showing that the view of the accident scene had been blocked, due to an object in path of light coming from that same scene.
• Evidence indicates that the witness viewed the accident for only a brief space of time
• Possession of a criminal history
• Facts indicate that the witness’ eyesight or hearing were impaired
• False allegation: That would include alleging that a written and signed statement must be notarized.
• Presentation of hearsay: That is why a judge would never allow presentation of the statements in a police report.
• Differences between what was stated in testimony, and what could be seen in video footage
• Differences between what was stated in testimony and what facts were shared in the recounting of a specific story
• Tendency for a statement’s words and phrases to sound almost the same as those that had been heard during an earlier period of testimony from a different person
• Inclusion in testimony of details that could confuse the jury
• Absence of good, clear background information in testimony
• Unexplained eagerness to share unverified facts about others
• Obvious reluctance to expand on a given point, one that the reluctant individual had introduced
• Effort made to present an opinion as a verified fact
