DOCSLIB.ORG

Proffer, Plea and Cooperation Agreements in the Second Circuit

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Proffer, Plea and Cooperation Agreements in the Second Circuit G THE B IN EN V C R H E S A N 8 D 8 B 8 A E 1 R SINC Web address: http://www.law.com/ny VOLUME 230—NO.27 THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 2003 OUTSIDE COUNSEL BY ALAN VINEGRAD Proffer, Plea and Cooperation Agreements in the Second Circuit he Department of Justice over- Northern and Western districts provide sees 93 U.S. Attorney’s offices that proffer statements will not be used in throughout the country and any criminal proceeding, the Eastern and beyond. Thousands of criminal Southern agreements are narrower, T promising only that such statements will prosecutors in these offices are responsible for enforcing a uniform set of criminal not be introduced in the government’s statutes, sentencing guidelines and case-in-chief or at sentencing. Thus, Department of Justice internal policies. proffer statements in those districts may Among the basic documents that are be offered at detention hearings and criminal prosecutors’ tools of the trade are suppression hearings as well as grand proffer, plea and cooperation agreements. jury proceedings. These documents govern the relationship Death Penalty Proffer. The Eastern between law enforcement and many of the District’s proffer agreement has a provision subjects, targets and defendants whom defendant) to make statements to the that assures a witness or defendant that DOJ investigates and prosecutes. government without fear that those proffer statements will not be considered Any belief that these agreements are as statements will be used directly against the by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in deciding uniform as the laws and policies underly- witness in a later prosecution. While years whether to recommend to the attorney ing them, however, has been dispelled, at general that the death penalty be sought. least in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the ------------------------------------------------ The value of this salutary provision, Second Circuit. A new report of the Any belief that these however, is at best uncertain, particularly Federal Bar Council reveals that, among agreements are as uniform in light of the attorney general’s recent the six districts that comprise the Second as the laws and policies decision to reject the Eastern District’s Circuit, there are substantial differences underlying them has been recommendation not to seek the death between many of the “form” agreements dispelled, at least in penalty against a would-be cooperating utilized by the U.S. Attorney’s offices in the U.S. Court of Appeals for defendant and to order that office to seek those districts.1 his execution instead.4 Indeed, nothing in the Second Circuit.x the agreement explicitly prevents the Following is a summary of some of the ------------------------------------------------ most significant differences that have been attorney general from considering proffer identified by the council among the form statements, notwithstanding the office’s agreements used in New York state. ago this agreement was as simple as its promise not to consider them in making its purpose suggests — and still is in some recommendation. 2 Proffer Agreements jurisdictions — over time it has expanded Government’s Use of Statements. All greatly in scope and complexity, so much four districts allow the government to use The basic function of the proffer so that little is left of its protections for the leads derived from proffer statements, agreement is to allow a witness (or witness with potential criminal exposure.3 and to impeach the witness with the Nevertheless, significant differences statements should the witness later testify. Alan Vinegrad, a partner at Covington & remain among the proffer agreements used The Southern and Eastern districts’ Burling, was U.S. attorney for the Eastern in New York. For example: agreements go further, however, and also District of New York. Extent of Protection. While the authorize the government to use proffer NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 2003 statements in rebuttal. What is more, proffers included. What the agreement motion only if the grounds for it are set the agreements permit rebuttal not only does provide, however, is that the govern- forth in the agreement. The Northern of evidence offered by the witness, but ment will not offer proffer statements into District provides no similar assurance with also of “factual assertions” (Eastern) evidence during the sentencing proceed- respect to upward departures. and even “arguments” (Southern) of ing, thus assuring that these statements On the other hand, the Southern defense counsel. will not be relied upon by the court in District agreement is unique in requiring These far-reaching rebuttal provisions computing the defendant’s sentence. a defendant to forego the opportunity have provoked considerable judicial Reciprocity. The Western and to move for — or even suggest, to the scrutiny, with reported decisions of at least Southern districts’ agreements provide sentencing court or the Probation four district judges criticizing, or at least that proffer statements may be disclosed to Department — a downward departure. (In questioning the enforceability of, the another law enforcement agency or the Western District, a defendant may provisions.5 In one of these cases, United prosecutor’s office only if the receiving seek such a departure, but only on grounds States v. Duffy, Judge Nina Gershon went agency agrees to abide by the terms of the set forth in the agreement.) so far as to hold the provision uncon- proffer agreement — thus explicitly While the provision does not actually stitutional, on the ground that it imper- prohibiting a theoretical end-run around prevent a judge from granting a downward missibly infringed upon the defendant’s the protections of the agreement. departure, it certainly makes it far less right to present a defense and to the Polygraph. The Western District likely that a defendant will receive one. effective assistance of counsel at trial. agreement provides for the witness’ While one district court has upheld the Witness Lying. While all four districts consent to a government-administered legality of this type of provision,6 its allow use of a witness’ proffer statements in polygraph examination. fairness is certainly subject to debate, a false statements or perjury prosecution, particularly in view of the ever-increasing the Northern and Western districts’ limitations on district judges’ ability to Plea Agreements agreements go further and, if the witness grant such a departure in the first place.7 lies, authorize use of the statements in a The basic “plea bargain” — the Of a piece with this policy is the Southern prosecution for any underlying offenses defendant pleads guilty to some charge, District’s practice, unique among the four, disclosed during the proffer. The Western the government agrees not to bring and/or of reserving the right to take a position District provides the witness with the right dismiss other charges, and the potential on where within the guideline range a to move to suppress statements in this sentencing range is defined — can be defendant should be sentenced. circumstance, with the government then found in all four districts’ plea agreements. At one time, DOJ policy provided for bearing the burden of proving the witness’ However, considerable variation exists one- to two-level downward departures for misconduct by a preponderance of the in the manner in which this bargain alien defendants who agreed to be evidence. Even so, proffers in these is effectuated. deported after serving their sentences. districts are plainly high-stakes affairs. Waiver of Rights. One trend in the However, that policy was rescinded in Safety Valve. Both the Southern and Southern and Eastern districts is for 1998.8 Currently in New York, only the Eastern districts’ agreements state that, if a plea agreements to require the defendant Western District agreement provides for defendant proffers in order to receive to waive an increasing number of this reduction. “safety valve” treatment under Sections judicially and statutorily created rights, Guideline Estimates. The Southern 2D1.1(b)(6) and 5C1.2 of the Sentencing in addition to the right to trial and and Eastern districts both provide Guidelines, the proffer statements may be related rights. Thus, the defendant is estimated guideline calculations — the used to calculate the defendant’s guideline required to waive his or her right to further former in a so-called Pimentel9 letter, the range. This exception to the no-use- discovery (including exculpatory and latter in the agreement itself. The at-sentencing promise requires a defendant impeachment material), the right to bring Northern District, on the other hand, does to weigh the benefit of the safety valve a Hyde Amendment claim with respect not, and even disclaims its ability to reduction against the risk that the to any dismissed charges, and (in the determine a defendant’s criminal history proffer will disclose information that will Eastern District) the right to a jury category in advance of the pre-sentence raise the guideline level to an equal or determination of sentencing-related investigation. greater degree. factual issues. Use of Plea Statements. The Northern Use at Sentencing. The Eastern Departure Motions. Both the Southern District agreement provides that factual District’s agreement makes clear that, and Eastern districts’ agreements provide admissions in the agreement are admissible consistent with Second Circuit case law, that the government will not move for an in any subsequent proceeding — even the government cannot withhold relevant upward departure, with the Western if the plea does not transpire or is information from the sentencing court — District agreement authorizing such a later withdrawn. NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 2003 Cooperation Agreements The Northern and Western districts’ Conclusion agreements make clear that the defen- The districts’ cooperation agreements dant’s entitlement to such a motion What emerges from the Federal Bar all provide the basic cooperation bargain: does not depend on the outcome of an Council’s examination of the New York a guilty plea and the full cooperation of investigation or prosecution.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Proffer Agreements
    BAR OURNAL J FEATURE States Attorney’s office for the Eastern District of New York provides: [T]he Office may use any statements made by Proffer Agreements Client: (A) to obtain leads to other evidence, which evidence may be used by the Office in any stage of a criminal prosecution (including What Is Your Client Waiving but not limited to detention hearing, trial or sentencing), civil or administrative proceeding, (B) as substantive evidence to and Is It Worth the Risk? cross-examine Client, should Client testify, and (C) as substantive evidence to rebut, directly or indirectly, any evidence offered or elicited, BY JOHN MCCAFFREY & JON OEBKER or factual assertions made, by or on behalf of Client at any stage of a criminal prosecution (including but not limited to detention hearing, our client is the target of a federal a plea of guilty later withdrawn” is inadmissible trial or sentencing).(Emphasis added.) investigation. He is offered the against the defendant. It is well-settled that the In practice, the particular language of these opportunity to speak with prosecutors protections afforded under these rules can be agreements determines what triggering events Yand investigators so that they have “his side” waived in proffer agreements, thus opening the open the door to the admission of a client’s of the story before determining whether door for a client’s statements to be used against proffer statements at trial. For example, in charges will be pursued. You may ask yourself, him at trial. United States v. Mezzanatto, 513 United States v. Gonzalez, 309 F.3d 882 (5th “What do I have to lose?” Well, the answer is U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Safety Valve and Substantial Assistance Exceptions
    Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentences: The Safety Valve and Substantial Assistance Exceptions Updated February 22, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R41326 SUMMARY R41326 Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentences: February 22, 2019 The Safety Valve and Substantial Assistance Charles Doyle Exceptions Senior Specialist in American Public Law Federal law requires a sentencing judge to impose a minimum sentence of imprisonment following conviction for any of a number of federal offenses. Congress has created three exceptions. Two are available in any case where the prosecutor asserts that the defendant has provided substantial assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of another. The other, commonly referred to as the safety valve, is available, without the government’s approval, for a handful of the more commonly prosecuted drug trafficking and unlawful possession offenses that carry minimum sentences. Qualification for the substantial assistance exceptions is ordinarily only possible upon the motion of the government. In rare cases, the court may compel the government to file such a motion when the defendant can establish that the refusal to do so was based on constitutionally invalid considerations, or was in derogation of a plea bargain obligation or was the product of bad faith. Qualification for the safety valve exception requires a defendant to satisfy five criteria. His past criminal record must be minimal; he must not have been a leader, organizer, or supervisor in the commission of the offense; he must not have used violence in the commission of the offense, and the offense must not have resulted in serious injury; and prior to sentencing, he must tell the government all that he knows of the offense and any related misconduct.
    [Show full text]
  • In (Partial) Defense of Strict Liability in Contract
    Michigan Law Review Volume 107 Issue 8 2009 In (Partial) Defense of Strict Liability in Contract Robert E. Scott Columbia University Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Contracts Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Robert E. Scott, In (Partial) Defense of Strict Liability in Contract, 107 MICH. L. REV. 1381 (2009). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol107/iss8/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. IN (PARTIAL) DEFENSE OF STRICT LIABILITY IN CONTRACT Robert E. Scott* Many scholars believe that notions of fault should and do pervade contract doctrine. Notwithstanding the normative and positive ar- guments in favor of a fault-based analysis of particular contract doctrines, I argue that contract liability is strict liability at its core. This core regime is based on two key prongs: (1) the promisor is li- able to the promisee for breach, and that liability is unaffected by the promisor'sexercise of due care orfailure to take efficient precau- tions; and (2) the promisor's liability is unaffected by the fact that the promisee, prior to the breach, has failed to take cost-effective precau- tions to reduce the consequences of nonperformance. I offer two complementary normative justificationsfor contract law's stubborn resistance to considerfault in either of these instances.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Employment Service Providers Guide to Anticipating and Matching Skills and Jobs Volume 4
    THE ROLE OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICE PROVIDERS GUIDE TO ANTICIPATING AND MATCHING SKILLS AND JOBS VOLUME 4 ETF_MG_brochure_2015_160x240 - last rev_161115.indd 1 16/11/2015 15:32:43 Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union. Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). More information on the European Union is available on the internet (http://europa.eu). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015 Print: ISBN 978-92-9157-633-3 doi:10.2816/691999 TA-04-15-483-EN-C PDF: ISBN 978-92-9157-634-0 doi:10.2816/816485 TA-04-15-483-EN-N © European Training Foundation / European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training / International Labour Office, 2015 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the EU institutions or the International Labour Office. Cover design: Article 10 Printed in Italy 2 The role of employment service providers ETF_MG_brochure_2015_160x240 - last rev_161115.indd 2 16/11/2015 15:32:46 Compendium on Anticipation and Matching of Skills THE ROLE OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICE PROVIDERS GUIDE TO ANTICIPATING AND MATCHING SKILLS AND JOBS VOLUME 4 Tine Andersen, Lizzi Feiler and Gregor Schulz 3 The role of employment service providers 3 ETF_MG_brochure_2015_160x240 - last rev_161115.indd 3 16/11/2015 15:35:15 4 Guide to anticipating and matching skills and jobs Guide to anticipating and matching skills and jobs ETF_MG_brochure_2015_160x240 - last rev_161115.indd 4 16/11/2015 15:35:15 FOREWORD n a context of dynamic and complex labour markets, gathering Iintelligence on current and future skill needs can support better matching of training and jobs, which is of paramount importance for every country in the world.
    [Show full text]
  • The Child Witness in Tort Cases: the Trials and Tribulations of R
    William Mitchell Law Review Volume 24 | Issue 1 Article 2 1998 The hiC ld Witness in Tort Cases: The rT ials and Tribulations of Representing Children Chris A. Messerly Follow this and additional works at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr Recommended Citation Messerly, Chris A. (1998) "The hiC ld Witness in Tort Cases: The rT ials and Tribulations of Representing Children," William Mitchell Law Review: Vol. 24: Iss. 1, Article 2. Available at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol24/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at Mitchell Hamline Open Access. It has been accepted for inclusion in William Mitchell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Mitchell Hamline Open Access. For more information, please contact [email protected]. © Mitchell Hamline School of Law Messerly: The Child Witness in Tort Cases: The Trials and Tribulations of R THE CHILD WITNESS IN TORT CASES: THE TRIALS AND TRIBULATIONS OF REPRESENTING CHILDREN Chris A. Messerlyt Trib-u-la-tion; n: distress or suffering resulting from op- pression, persecution or affliction also: a trying experi- ence.* I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................169 II. To TESTIFY OR NOT TO TESTIFY, THAT IS THE QUESTION ....170 A . Obeying the Child ..............................................................171 III. IS THE CHILD COMPETENT TO TESTIFY? ................................178 IV. PREPARING THE CHILD TO MEET DARTH VADER ...................180 V. PRESENTING THE CHILD'S "TESTIMONY" WITHOUT CALLING THE CHILD TO TESTIFY ...........................................184 VI. CONCLUSION ..........................................................................188 I. INTRODUCTION A child's testimony may provide some therapeutic value for the child,1 but, at the same time it is unquestionably traumatic for a child.
    [Show full text]
  • Cross-Examining the Mistaken Witness
    Cross-Examining the Mistaken Witness By Ben Rubinowitz and Evan Torgan When a witness testifies falsely at trial there are generally only two reasons for such testimony: Either the witness is mistaken or a liar. These two types of witnesses should never be confused. It is clear that the motives of the mistaken witness are honorable. That witness understands the truth, respects the court and the system, and genuinely intends to tell the truth. The problem is that his facts are wrong. On the other hand, the motives of the liar are anything but honorable. He too understands the oath (but does not intend to follow it), has little or no respect for the system, and is willing to perpetrate a fraud for his own self interests. A trial lawyer must consider how to attack these two types of witnesses. Too often, lawyers approach cross-examination of both the mistaken witness and the liar with a “one-size- fits-all” approach. This is a mistake. These two types of witnesses are completely distinct beings that think and act differently, and as a result, they must be approached differently on cross- examination. An ineffective trial lawyer might undercut his own credibility by attacking the mistaken witness as if he is a liar. The jurors might think the lawyer is a bully—attacking without justification or regard for the good faith nature of the response. Conversely, failing to appropriately attack the lying witness by exposing the perjurious testimony can result in an adverse verdict. Attacking Mistaken Testimony Carefully constructed questions are a critical part of cross-examining a mistaken witness.1 A trial attorney must consider the manner in which the questions are asked, the tone of the examiner’s voice, and the subject area of inquiry before posing the first question.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Prosecutors Are Permitted to Offer Witness Inducements: a Matter of Constitutional Authority*
    WHY PROSECUTORS ARE PERMITTED TO OFFER WITNESS INDUCEMENTS: A MATTER OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY* Hon. H. Lloyd King, Jr.** INTRODUCTION Prosecutors1 in the twenty-first century will undoubtedly face ever more resourceful criminals who will devise increasingly sophis- ticated and complex methods of operation designed to shield their activities and identities from detection by law enforcement.2 As now, next century's prosecutors will find accomplice testimony to be an essential tool in piercing the veil of secrecy surrounding the leaders of organized crime and narcotics trafficking, as well as detecting cor- ruption by public officials and white-collar criminals.3 Obviously, * © H. Lloyd King, Jr., 1999. All rights reserved. ** Immigration Judge, Miami, Florida. B.A., Henderson State University, 1975; J.D., University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 1978. Immigration Judges are appointed by, and serve under the direction of, the Attorney General of the United States. The views expressed in this Article are those of the Author and are not necessarily the views of the United States Department of Justice. Prior to appointment as an Immigration Judge, the Author served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and as Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney and Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for the Sixth Judicial District of Arkansas. 1. This Article primarily examines the federal prosecutor's role in offering induce- ments to government witnesses. The issues addressed in this Article are, however, equally relevant to state prosecutors in light of similar challenges to witness inducement agreements raised in various state jurisdictions. See, e.g., Neil B. Eisenstadt, Let's Make a Deal: A Look at United States v.
    [Show full text]
  • The Perils of Calling Your Opponent As a Witness in Your Case
    OUTSIDE PERSPECTIVES The Perils Of Calling Your Opponent As A Witness In Your Case YEARS AGO, I WATCHED A PLAINTIFF’S ing on direct did not voluntarily take the stand and, attorney fail miserably in his attempts to tell his more importantly, did not have the opportunity prior to client’s story to a jury through his very first wit- examination by the opposing counsel to fully tell his or ness – one of the named her story. Many judges under these circumstances will Michael A. Stick defendants. At a recess, a allow an adverse witness greater freedom to deviate friend said to me: “This from the standard “yes or no” answers of cross exami- just proves that you are a nation and to explain their answers. This results in fool if you try to put on your case in chief through a direct examination that is often lengthier, choppier, an adverse witness.” As self-evident as my friend’s less predictable, and ultimately less compelling than a advice might seem, it is often ignored. tight, clean cross examination of the same witness in Except under unique circumstances, examining an your opponent’s case. The time to examine an unpre- adverse witness on direct during your case in chief dictable and hostile witness is during cross examina- for any extended period of time is usually a mistake. tion and not on direct during your case in chief. To begin with, using an adverse witness as your To make matters worse, juries in particular might spokesperson is simply not a compelling way to offer sympathize more with an adverse witness being exam- your evidence at trial.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ethical Limits of Discrediting the Truthful Witness
    Marquette Law Review Volume 99 Article 4 Issue 2 Winter 2015 The thicE al Limits of Discrediting the Truthful Witness: How Modern Ethics Rules Fail to Prevent Truthful Witnesses from Being Discredited Through Unethical Means Todd A. Berger Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Courts Commons, and the Evidence Commons Repository Citation Todd A. Berger, The Ethical Limits of Discrediting the Truthful Witness: How Modern Ethics Rules Fail to Prevent Truthful Witnesses from Being Discredited Through Unethical Means, 99 Marq. L. Rev. 283 (2015). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol99/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE ETHICAL LIMITS OF DISCREDITING THE TRUTHFUL WITNESS: HOW MODERN ETHICS RULES FAIL TO PREVENT TRUTHFUL WITNESSES FROM BEING DISCREDITED THROUGH UNETHICAL MEANS TODD A. BERGER* Whether the criminal defense attorney may ethically discredit the truthful witness on cross-examination and later during closing argument has long been an area of controversy in legal ethics. The vast majority of scholarly discussion on this important ethical dilemma has examined it in the abstract, focusing on the defense attorney’s dual roles in a criminal justice system that is dedicated to searching for the truth while simultaneously requiring zealous advocacy even for the guiltiest of defendants. Unlike these previous works, this particular Article explores this dilemma from the perspective of the techniques that criminal defense attorney’s use on cross-examination and closing argument to cast doubt on the testimony of a credible witness.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Gatekeeping of Police-Generated Witness Testimony Sandra Guerra Thompson
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 102 | Issue 2 Article 2 Spring 2012 Judicial Gatekeeping of Police-Generated Witness Testimony Sandra Guerra Thompson Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Sandra Guerra Thompson, Judicial Gatekeeping of Police-Generated Witness Testimony, 102 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 329 (2013). https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol102/iss2/2 This Criminal Law is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/12/10202-0329 THE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 102, No. 2 Copyright © 2012 by Northwestern University School of Law Printed in U.S.A. JUDICIAL GATEKEEPING OF POLICE- GENERATED WITNESS TESTIMONY SANDRA GUERRA THOMPSON* This Article urges a fundamental change in the administration of criminal justice. The Article focuses on what I call “police-generated witness testimony,” by which I mean confessions, police informants, and eyewitness identifications. These types of testimony are leading causes of wrongful convictions. The Article shows that heavy-handed tactics by the police have a tendency to produce false evidence of these types, especially when the individuals being questioned by police are particularly vulnerable, such as juveniles or those who are intellectually disabled or mentally ill. It also demonstrates that there are procedural best practices that the police can follow to reduce the dangers of false evidence.
    [Show full text]
  • The Why of Cross-Examination
    The why of cross-examination * By: F. Dennis Saylor IV and Daniel I. Small ) June 29, 2017 Our next series of columns will address the subject of cross-examination. Dan Small recently returned from his second trip to Uzbekistan, talking with judges and lawyers there about the adversarial system. We’ll give Dan the floor to share some thoughts. “Why have cross-examination?” It seems an odd question, given our justice system’s longstanding and fundamental reliance on the process. Yet before we discuss the “how” of cross-examination, let’s consider the “why.” This process that we take for granted in court is, after all, somewhat unnatural: You would not subject a friend or co-worker to intense grilling before deciding whether to believe something he told you. Why do so here? The adversarial system is not the system of justice in Uzbekistan. Instead, it has a version of the Byzantine-era inquisitorial system, in which the judge is responsible for searching for and determining the truth, and questioning of witnesses by opposing counsel is virtually unknown. They are looking for ways to improve and open up their system, but remain skeptical as to whether cross- examination is a legitimate fact-finding aid or a TV and movie stunt, like in “My Cousin Vinny” and the other American movies that make it over there. There is, after all, only one “truth.” Why does the judge need lawyers interfering with his search to find it? What underlies our acceptance of cross-examination are several basic beliefs. First is the belief that “truth” is not that simple, that there is often more than one version, or at least more than one perspective.
    [Show full text]
  • 7.03 Opinion of Lay Witness (1) the Testimony of a Witness Not Testifying
    7.03 Opinion of Lay Witness (1) The testimony of a witness not testifying as an expert may be given in the form of an opinion or inference when that testimony: (a) is rationally based on the witness’s personal perception; (b) is within the ambit of common experience or that of a particular witness; and (c) would be helpful to the finder of fact in understanding the witness’s testimony or in determining a fact in issue, especially when facts cannot be stated or described in such a manner as to enable the finder of fact to form an accurate judgment about the subject matter of the opinion or inference. (2) Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference that meets the foregoing criteria for admissibility is admissible even if it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. Note Subdivision (1). The law recognizes that in their daily lives individuals communicate in part by the expression of statements that constitute an opinion or inference; e.g., “it was snowing,” rather than “white flakes were falling from the sky.” Beyond those self-evident examples of warranted opinions and inferences, the law has developed parameters within which a lay witness may testify to an opinion, as opposed to a statement of facts upon which the trier of fact will draw a conclusion. The first requirement for admissibility of a lay witness’s opinion or inference, as set forth in paragraph (a), is for the testimony to be rationally based on the witness’s personal perception.
    [Show full text]