It is improper for a prosecutor to ask the jury to decide who was telling the truth. This task is independent of whether the jurors think any witnesses are lying or telling the truth.” Id., *18-19.Īs to arguments similar to that in the Crossguns case, the Court had ample precedent: “The jury’s role is to weigh the evidence to determine whether the State has met its burden. The Washington Court then reviewed its precedent. Who is lying and who is telling the truth.” I Somebody’s not telling the truth, and, again, you’re going to have to make that decision. Is lying or is lying? And that’s your job entirely.” When discussing R.G.M.’s and Crossguns’s conflicting testimony about whether any abuse occurred, the prosecutor said, “ou have the testimony of on one hand, and testimony on the other hand. He pointed out S.R.’s and R.G.M.’s conflicting testimony about their conversation and told the jury, “Somebody’s lying. In closing, the prosecutor posited the case as one version being true and one a lie, a decision the jury would have to make: The defendant also testified and denied any abuse had occurred. What did the prosecutor argue? In a child abuse case, the child detailed the abuse and another minor testified for the defense, claiming the complainant had admitted that the accusation was false. That analysis is at the core of a March, 2022 decision of the Washington Supreme Court. Yet there is a valid if not compelling argument that a prosecutor may run afoul of rules of professional conduct and the Due Process command that the state bear the burden of proof if the jury is urged to “speak the truth” with its verdict. I ask that you return a verdict that you already know in your hearts and your mind is the truth, a verdict of guilty. But if you believe she is lying to you, and her father is telling the truth, then you must find the defendant not guilty. If you believe the child is telling you the truth, you must find the defendant guilty. As I told you at the very beginning, this is a case of whom you believe-it’s that simple. Today you must decide the truth, and to do that you must decide which of two people is telling you the truth. ![]() The judge will charge you that the defendant comes into court with the presumption of innocence in his favor, but the truth does not change. ![]() A verdict a declaration of the truth of a matter in issue, submitted to a jury for trial.Īnd speaking the truth is often linked to which side’s witness are telling the honest/accurate version of the case. from vere, truly, or verus, true, and dictum, a saying). And that tracks the Latin origins of the word, as explained at Why is this question posed? Every lawyer has heard or used words in a closing argument urging the jury to ‘find the truth’ or ‘speak the truth’ by its verdict. ![]() Rather, a jury’s job is to determine whether the State has proved the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury’s job is not to determine the truth of what happened …. A verdict is, as it were, the saying of the truth, in the same manner that a judgment is the saying of the law.” (last visited March 17, 2022). “Veredictum, quasi dictum veritas ut judicium quasi juris dictum.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |