18 - Witness Competency Flashcards
Witness Competency
- concerns qualifications to testify
Mental Competency
Ability to observe, recall, and relate
Moral Competency
Focuses on the W’s recognition of the duty to testify truthfully
Common Law Disqualification Rule
v
Current Impeachment
Interest (e.g., parties * spouses) Infancy Crime of infamy Insane, idiot, inebriated Infidel
v
Bias Sensory or mental defect Conviction of crim (609) Sensory or mental defect Oath (603, 610)
Federal Rules - 601 702 603 605/606
601 - all witnesses are competent and drafters stated there were no competency requirements (but some fed cases suggest that W may be dis if he “does not have the capacity to recall, or that he does not understand the duty to testify truthfully” - this turns competency rule into a 403 issue
702 - governs competency or qualifications of expert Ws
603 - Specifies an oath requirement
605/606 - respectively deal with the competency of the judge and jurrors
603
Requires Ws to swear or affirm to the truthfulness of their testimony prior to testifying
Mental Capacity - Psychological Examinations
- Psychological Examinations - court has authority to order a psychiatric or psychological exam of a potential W who is challenged on mental competency grounds but few courts do
Ability to Communicate
- On rare occasions, a Ws compet to test has been challenged for lack of ability to communicate (Byndom v State - rape V suffered from cerebral palsy and mental retardation but court ruled she was able to testify by gestures, facial expressions, ability to sign yes and no and limited use of yes/no function key on her Dynavox computer)
- Except where the Ws disability precludes cross-examination, courts have permitted Ws to testify through a variety of means
Child Competency
Procedure
Psych exam
- Intelligence, not age, is guiding criteria in determining competency of W
- Suggestibility problems
- Some jurisdictions continue the older approach, requiring competency inquiry for children under 10
- More recent statutes, focusing on child sexual abuse, limit or abolish competency rules, including the oath requirement
- 601 - every person is competent to be a W and fed stat specifies ch8ildren are presumed competent to testify
Procedure - not usual for judge to conduct voir dire exam at sep hearing or in chambers where the D and P have an opportunity to question the child. No matter the procedure, voir dire should be part of the record.
- in many juris, no rule against conduction child competency in front of jury but good practice is to excuse
- other states use hearing to determine competency when evidence suggests memory has been “tainted” by parents or police
Psych exam -only in unusual circumstances to determine competence. After passing, credibility is up to jury like every other W
Child Competency and Testimony - Special Procedures
611(a) governs special methods ex. sitting on relative’s lap and comfort dogs
Child Competency and Testimony - Closed-Circuit Testimony
- Right of confrontation includes right to face your accusers, however, there are exceptions
- Mayland v. Craig - one-way closed-circuit television for child witnesses in sexual abuse case b/c requiring to test in presence of D would result in emotional distress
- can’t nearly assume children will be traumatized, but be fact-specific inquiry (fear of test in front of jury is not sufficient)
- Accused can communicate with counsel by telephone - fed stat requires “contemporaneous communication”
Child Competency and Testimony - Videotape Depositions
- Fed stat permits but not automatically admissible at a subsequent trial - another hearing with specific findings is again required
- Type of former testimony - hearsay exception - use in crim raises confrontation issues
- US v. Miguel - V allowed to vie test via videotaped deposition where D watched from another room by closed-circuit television. Judge didn’t allow D to comm by telephone with counsel during the deposition, only breaks - Reversed b/c stat provided for “contem comm” w/counsel during depo
Dead Man Statues
- intended to protect the estates of deceased or incompetent persons aginst fraud claims
- typically disq surviving party form testifying if other party dies
- Vary a lot by state
- Never been a fed Dead man stat and only handful of jurisdictions
- Criticisims - assume that a party’s W’s interest in a case will result in fraud test which, b/c of death or legal incomp, cannot be rebutted by adverse party
- Stat is prob ineffective - won’t prevent dishonest party from introducing false testimony through other Ws
- stat may be unnecessary - jury can quickly comprehend obvious bias of the party-W and “cross ex and other safeguards for truth are suff guarantee aginst freq false decisions”
- b/c of innumerable exceptions and waiver options, these stats are often difficult to apply
- (most important) stat works an injustice upon an honest party who is disqualified
Alternative approaches - Other mechanisms available, ex. some juris require corroboration; other give judge discretion to admit the survivor’s testimony, others recognize hearsay exception for the statements of the deceased of incompetent - such a provision w/abolish of Dead Man’s Stat, permits jury to receive more info, not less, and avoids injustices of the stat
Competency - Judge 605
605 - disqualifies judge as a witness in cases that judge is presiding (extends to clerk etc)
Objections - No obj req to preserve issue for appeal
Competency -
A. Jurors as W 606(a)
B. Impeachment of Verdicts and Indictments 606(b)
A. 606(a) - prohibits juror from testifying
Objections - party must object to juror as a W, requiring that the party be provided an opportunity to object outside the presence of the jury
B. 606(b) (applies to affidavits and test) - jurors are incomp to test about validity of verdict or an indictment if subject of their test involves internal deliberations.
Exceptions
- Rationale - pros of existing evidence - freedom of delib, stability and finality of verdicts, and protection of jurors against annoyance and embarrassment. Con - putting verd beyond effective reach promotes irregularity and injustice
- Inernal influences - juror not competent to estify about ht internal operations or thought processes of the jurors during deliberations. Rule covers - 1. any statement made or incident that occurred during deliberations 2. effect of anything on that juror’s or another juror’s vote and 3. any jurors mental processes concerning the verdic or indictment
Exeptions:
- Extaneous info - juror is competent to testify about extraneous info that has been introduced into deliberaiton process - Outside Influence - ex. jury tampering - Clerical Mistakes - 606(b) amended to clarify that the rule doesn't apply to clerical mistakes in entering a verdict on the verdict form - Racial Bias - ex. juror relying on stereotypes to convict crim D - Substantive grounds - 606(b) does not specify the substantive grounds for setting aside verdicts or indictments.
