Do most people who take the stand at a trial not tell &quot;the whole truth&quot;? I should note beforehand that much of my legal "knowledge" is based off of TV shows and movies so some of my assumptions might be off. When you take the stand at a trial, you promise to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." But it seems like most witnesses do not tell the whole truth, at least right away. For example, lawyers often give certain lines of questioning to develop an argument. From what I understand, witnesses are encouraged to simply answer the questions asked and not say much more. But often there is a lot more nuance and a lot more additional evidence that could paint the story in a different light. If you are simply responding to a lawyer's line of questioning, and the lawyer's line of questioning is not complete, then your responses are not telling the whole truth. And because lawyers are usually representing one side or the other, they rarely give a complete line of questioning and only ask the questions that support their side of the case. Does this mean that most witnesses are not telling the whole truth?
First off, the concept of &quot;the whole truth&quot; is legally undefined. It cannot possibly mean &quot;everything that you know that is connected to this question&quot;, since otherwise a witness would be required to drone on and on for hours. Second, there is no way to determine what percentage of witnesses are not &quot;telling the whole truth&quot;. We can be fairly certain that when a guilty accused takes the stand, there is a good chance that he is not telling the whole truth, and the oath does not compel you to testify against yourself. Even if there was some clear legal definition of &quot;the whole truth&quot;, there is typically no way to know what the actual facts are, to know if a witness failed to say something that was part of &quot;the whole truth&quot;. The promise part of the oath is irrelevant, that is, the requirement is not to &quot;keep your promise&quot;, it is to not perjure yourself. Every jurisdiction in the US has a statute that makes it a crime to commit perjury. At the federal level, the law is 18 USC 1621, which applies to anyone who has &quot;taken an oath&quot; promising to testify truly, and punishes the witness if he &quot;willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true&quot;. The landmark ruling Bronston v. US, 409 US 352 clarified the obligation of witnesses vs. the duty of interrogators, when it comes to not providing information desired by the interrogator. The court ruled that the perjury statutes does not apply to a witness's answer that is literally true, but unresponsive, even assuming the witness intends to mislead his questioner by the answer, and even assuming the answer is arguably &quot;false by negative implication.&quot; A perjury prosecution is not, in our adversary system, the primary safeguard against errant testimony; given the incongruity of an unresponsive answer, it is the questioner's burden to frame his interrogation acutely to elicit the precise information he seeks. This was a classical &quot;not the whole truth&quot; case. The exchange was as follows, where the accused was testifying in bankruptcy proceedings: Q. Do you have any bank accounts in Swiss banks, Mr. Bronston? A. No, sir. Q. Have you ever? A. The company had an account there for about six months, in Zurich. The fact is that Bronston used to have a personal account in a Swiss Bank, which he did not reveal. His answer could be considered misleading because he only answered part of the question, as it pertained to the company (but not him personally). The crux of the court's ruling is that it is the responsibility of the attorney conducting the interrogation to notice that he did not answer the question asked, and to insist on a response that also covers personal accounts. This established the &quot;literal truth&quot; doctrine for perjury conviction: if what you say is literally true, the testimony is not perjurous. As a later court (DeZarn) commented, because a nonresponsive answer, by its nature, requires speculation by the fact-finder as to what the answer “implies”, there cannot be a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the answer is untruthful. Clinton successfully relied on this defense with respect to certain of his literally-true testimony. One tweak on this is US v. DeZarn, 157 F3d 1042, where a literal-truth defense was set forth but rejected by the court. The accused was asked about a party that was allegedly a fundraising event. His testimony was that it wasn't a fundraising event for the governor (in fact it was), and his defense came down to the fact that the prosecutor asked about a party in 1991, had earlier referred to it as a &quot;Preakness Party&quot; (which the governor had held previously), and asked about fundraising &quot;at that activity&quot;. DeZarn's claim was that he thought the prosecutor was asking about a party in 1990 (which was a &quot;Preakness Party&quot;, with no fundraising). The prosecutor was in error in previously calling it a &quot;Preakness Party&quot;, but was correct in identifying that there was a party (with fundraising) at the governor's house, in 1991 time. The wording of DeZarn's testimony was, simply &quot;I don't know... No... No&quot;: these are responses that have no literal truth value taken on their own, and can be judged only in relation to what question was asked (whereas Bronston's testimony was literally true on its own). DeZarn's conviction was upheld because he could not have been confused about which party was being referred to, and what the actual question was; moreover, in saying just &quot;No&quot;, he gave no sign that his response was a partial answer to the question. The DeZarn court did not clarify matters, leaving it at the conclusion that a perjury inquiry which focuses only upon the precision of the question and ignores what the Defendant knew about the subject matter of the question at the time it was asked, misses the very point of perjury: that is, the Defendant's intent to testify falsely and, thereby, mislead his interrogators. This does not clearly distinguish DeZarn from Bronston, but that could be remedied by a more precise theory of the linguistic relationship between the question(s) asked and the literal answer – Bronston said enough that a reasonable person could detect that only part of the question was answered, whereas the testimony &quot;No&quot; gives no overt sign that the testifier had privately re-written the question to be something like &quot;Was there fundraising at a Preakness Party in 1991&quot;, as opposed to &quot;at that activity&quot;. The court relied on a subjective &quot;sniff test&quot; for distinguishing responsive from non-responsive testimony, so I would say that they simply did not draw the bright lines that could have been drawn (which would be based on better distinguishing &quot;implies&quot; versus &quot;asserts&quot;).
I don't believe your premise is necessarily true. As the Supreme Court has held, a defendant can be prosecuted for perjury after being convicted for another offense at trial: The conviction of Williams, at a former trial, for beating certain victims is not former or double jeopardy. Obviously perjury at a former trial is not the same offense as the substantive offense, under 18 U.S.C. § 242, of depriving a person of constitutional rights under color of law. . . . It would be no service to the administration of justice to enlarge the conception of former jeopardy to afford a defendant immunity from prosecution for perjury while giving testimony in his own defense. United States v. Williams, 341 U.S. 58, 62 (1951) (emphasis added). Now as a practical matter, trying a convicted person for perjury is most likely rare, since the prosecutor has already obtained a conviction for the underlying offense. Starting another prosecution for perjury might be excessive or unnecessary. But that doesn't mean it's categorically prohibited. Note also that perjury by the defendant can be considered by the judge to enhance the defendant's sentence. United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 96 (1993).
A witness can only testify to what they witnessed That means their testimony can only be what they personally saw or heard (or, more rarely, touched, smelled and tasted). They cannot testify to the truth of what someone else told them (although they can testify that they were told it) - that’s called hearsay and it’s inadmissible. A witness cannot learn things after the event and testify to them.
can you hire a witness as your lawyer to exclude their testimony? That is pure fiction and misleading. Unfortunately scenes like that contribute to keep people ignorant about the law, which then makes it easier for courts to dissimulate their recurrent miscarriage of justice. But Purdue University v. Wartell, 5 N.E.3d 797 (2014) is an example where the Indiana courts did the right thing, and is pertinent to your question. There, Purdue University first assigned an investigator in regard to plaintiff's grievance, and thereafter the University tried to withhold information under pretext that the investigator was also its lawyer and thus that the information was protected by the privilege. Because that person hitherto had been portrayed only as an independent investigator, the Indiana courts concluded that Purdue University was estopped from invoking the attorney-client privilege (as well as the work-product doctrine). Thus, the guy in the film or series who said to be "screwed on Kardashian" reflects pure cluelessness about how the law supposedly operates. I have not seen the plot of that film or series, but the information that the friend-lawyer obtained prior to becoming O.J.'s attorney would not be protected by the privilege because it was not obtained in preparation for O.J.'s defense. If there were one star witness on the opposing side and they happened to be a lawyer, could you simply pay them off by hiring them as your lawyer? This question is somewhat unclear to me, but I will mention that lawyers have a duty to disclose to their potential or actual client any conflict of interests. The rules of so-called "professional conduct" discourage lawyers to ignore conflict of interests in that this conflict may impair their "services". And, as I explained previously, any information that a lawyer obtains as witness rather than as attorney in the matter is not protected by the privilege. Thus, as for If you committed a crime at a law-firm and everyone who witnessed it was a lawyer, is there any rule preventing you from just hiring all of them? the answer is: Nothing prevents the criminal from hiring all of them, but that information is not protected.
A self-represented person, as a practical matter, has no choice but to engage with the court when an oral argument is conducted. A person present in a courtroom likewise has an obligation to acknowledge a judge addressing them. Usually it wouldn't be contemptuous to fail to appear at oral arguments of a fully briefed matter (e.g. a motion for summary judgment, or an appeal), but it would generally be viewed negatively. One could respond to a question from the court with &quot;I don't really have anything more to say, my brief speaks for itself.&quot; And, sometimes a court would leave it at that, but if the court insists there is really no other option than to clarify and explain yourself. Most often, this helps more than hurts a pro se party, although I've certainly seen cases with ghost written pleadings (which are authorized if disclosed in many jurisdictions) where this isn't the case. A fairly common tactic in civil litigation is the take a deposition of a party, or to call a party to the witness stand, and to ask them if they really want the relief that their filed legal documents says that they do, as a way to narrow the scope of the claims brought against the questioning lawyer's client. But, this is less of an issue with a pro se party when the person who drafted the legal documents and the person engaging in oral arguments are the same person. This can't be done in criminal litigation, but I could see a prosecutor trying to do something similar in oral argument, although usually in that context, the judge and not the prosecutor, is asking the questions.
It seems like the officer should have to present at least some kind of evidence that the alleged crime occurred. Testimony is evidence. Officers can and do abuse this, but courts tend to give them the benefit of the doubt, so they typically attribute greater weight and credibility to a police officer's testimony than to that of a defendant.
Your belief in the truth of a statement is of only limited value in a defamation suit. Saying that a person is incompetent in that person's profession can certainly be defamation, and may even be defamation per se, depending on the jurisdiction. If the person sues and the speaker asserts truth as a defense, the speaker may have to prove that the statement is true. Why would one need to say anything at all in such a situation? Whether such a statement was a factual statement or a statement of opinion would depend very much on the detailed circumstances. But it is at least possible that a suit might be filed and won on this fact pattern. See this answer for more on defamation under US law.
Hope you have a good prosecutor and a sympathetic judge "They asked repeatedly how much she had to drink ..." Objection: Asked and answered "how she could claim not to remember certain details" Objection: Calls for a conclusion/speculation. The witness is not a brain scientist, she cannot speculate as to why people remember some details and not others. She is testifying as to what she does remember, not as to why she doesn't remember things. "asking if she had not been flirting with him in the days before the incident" Objection: Relevance. Is the defense seriously suggesting that flirtation, if it happened, in the preceding days amounts to consent at the time of the incident? "asked her why she had not chosen a more modest one" Objection: Relevance. Is the defense now suggesting that what the witness wore amounts to consent?