Taking an oath

[Steve]

Out of curiousity, when a person takes the stand in a courtroom and is asked if the solemnly swear/promise to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", can they say "No"?

Not a refusal to testify, just replying "no" to being asked to tell the truth.....

[Coot]

You could do it, but I think it would promptly get you a contempt citation from the judge.

[jfcjrus]

You could do it, but I think it would promptly get you a contempt citation from the judge.
I suspect you're correct.
Which prompts the question WHY?
What, or where, is it stated in our laws that I have to say 'Yes', or incur the rath of the judicial system?

In other words, what is the specific precidence?

Just wondering.l
Regards,

[Steve]

That's sort of where I'm coming from, why must anyone be compelled to tell the truth? Certainly, it's what I want from any witness and the truth is critical to a functioning justice system, but why must any person be forced to tell the truth?

[Piobaireachd]

I could see a contempt charge if you promised to tell the truth and then lied. I'm wondering if you just refused to promise to tell the truth if you would be only deemed a hostile witness or whatever and the jury be ordered to disregard anything you might have said.

Then again, I may have watched way too much Perry Mason reruns.

[ethics]

I would think that you would not be a witness that the Judge would admit to the stand? That's the worse that would happen.

That NO would be recorded and regarded negatively towards the side of the said witness.

[Coot]

The taking of a judicial oath is a requirement in federal and laws of the various states. I'm pretty sure refusing to take the oath, as in swear or affirm to tell the truth, would get yer keester fined and thrown in the pokey until such time as you complied with the law.

[Steve]

I found it. It's in the Sixth Amendment:

"[citizens shall have the right] to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor....."

So, you can be compelled to tell the truth under oath and penalty of perjury and, of course, the opposing counsel can cross-examine that testimony given, under the same oath.

[Techie2000]

I assume that you can't be forced to be a witness unless you are served, so you could always just hide from the servers until the statue of limitations dies. Otherwise you can't be compelled to bear witness against yourself under Amendment V and IIRC you can't be forced to testify against your spouse, so I'd say that all in all these laws are actually quite reasonable. After all, what if you were accused of a crime, and the one guy that can prove you didn't do it refused to testify and refused to tell the truth?

[Fiona]

You'd be treated as a hostile witness... giving the prosecutor more leeway, however if you don't tell the truth and they can prove it, you could be held in contempt.

[ShinyTop]

I believe perjury is the charge for lying under oath. Contempt is for refusing to testify without justification under the law. I know it is probably from the Idiot Box but contempt is what they charge journalists with who refuse to testify.

[Kangaroo]

The court issues a subpeona on behalf of one side or the other. This is the compeller. The oath is a throw-back to old English times, wherein oaths to God were thought to have real power. If you refuse to testify the court can issue a contempt of court ruling and jail you until you decide to testify, or take some money. Or a prosecutor can charge you with interferring with an investigation.

[ditch]

In the US have you got the option of swearing to the court to tell the truth as opposed to swearing on the Bible? We can do that here but its a relatively recently introduced option....I believe. But I'll check on that.

[Coot]

Yep, for the non-religious types or for folks of a religious persuasion that disallows these types of things, you can solemnly avow to tell the whole truth, sans religious text.

[Lovehound]

You'd be treated as a hostile witness... giving the prosecutor more leeway, however if you don't tell the truth and they can prove it, you could be held in contempt. ^^^ Correct answer. You can't be forced to testify, well except as a hostile witness. Fiona, you're smart! :)

You would be prosecuted if it could be proven that you lied. Perhaps if you refused to answer at all then (and only then) would you be prosecuted for contempt of court.

[Coot]

^^^ Correct answer. You can't be forced to testify, well except as a hostile witness.

You would be prosecuted if it could be proven that you lied. Perhaps if you refused to answer at all then (and only then) would you be prosecuted for contempt of court.

Actually, that would be a non-sequitar answer. ;) The original question is what would happen if you refused to take the judicial oath to tell the truth, as prescribed by law?

[Lovehound]

Not really. If you said, "No," you would be treated as a hostile witness, as Fiona stated. If you refused to testify at all it would be contempt of court.

And it's "non sequitur." :)

[Coot]

No, as has already been pointed out, taking the oath is required under law before you're allowed to give testimony. Refusing to take the oath puts you in violation of that law, and you would be cited for contempt.

[Coot]

Here's a legal reference (http://www.insd.uscourts.gov/rules/rules8.htm) for the doubting Thomas's. (Bold by me)

Contempt Proceedings -- 28 U.S.C. ' 636(e). In any proceeding before a Magistrate Judge in this district, any of the following acts or conduct shall constitute a contempt of the District Court: (1) disobedience or resistance to any lawful order, process, or writ; (2) misbehavior at a hearing or other proceeding, or so near the place thereof as to obstruct the same; (3) failure to produce, after having been ordered to do so, any pertinent document; (4) refusal to appear after having been subpoenaed or, upon appearing, refusal to take the oath or affirmation as a witness, or, having taken the oath or affirmation, refusal to be examined according to law; or (5) any other act or conduct which if committed before a Judge of this Court would constitute contempt of this Court. Upon the commission of any such act or conduct, the Magistrate Judge shall forthwith certify the facts to a Judge of this Court and may serve or cause to be served upon any person whose behavior is brought into question under this rule an order requiring such person to appear before a Judge of this Court upon a day certain to show cause why he/she should not be adjudged in contempt by reason of the facts so certified. Such Judge shall thereupon, in a summary manner, hear the evidence as to the act or conduct complained of and, if it is such as to warrant punishment, punish such person in the same manner and to the same extent as for a contempt committed before a Judge of the Court, or commit such person upon the conditions applicable in the case of defiance of the process of the District Court or misconduct in the presence of a Judge of the Court.

[ditch]

Not much point getting you up there in the witness stand if you don't at the very least, swear to tell the truth. I don't think that being seen as a hostile witness if you don't swear makes sense. You're more likely a useless witness, hence the legal requirement to swear an oath.

I'd imagine our and your legal systems would be very similar in this matter.

[SixofNine]

Not much point getting you up there in the witness stand if you don't at the very least, swear to tell the truth. I don't think that being seen as a hostile witness if you don't swear makes sense. I agree. Being treated as a hostile witness in U.S. courts simply means that you can be asked leading questions that require "yes" or "no" answers. If you don't swear to tell the truth, I fully agree with you, that doesn't help matters much. :)

Brian

[SixofNine]

Lying under oath is not necessarily perjury. In fact it usually is not. It is only perjury if the lie is specifically about a matter relevant to the fact being tried.

Though hopefully most of the questions being asked of witnesses in a trial are about material matters. :)

Brian

[Fiona]

yup...
and by the way, Coot's right (don't get used to it hottie) My answer was not specific to the original question... although I was trying to go there... going off track is my specialty :nut:

So- if you refuse to testify you might have to pay severely but it's a hell of a way to hold up a trial... no?

[jfcjrus]

Ok, Steve asked the question.....
Out of curiousity, when a person takes the stand in a courtroom and is asked if the solemnly swear/promise to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", can they say "No"?

Not a refusal to testify, just replying "no" to being asked to tell the truth.....
....and, we discussed the legality of it all, blah, blah.
But, I don't think we have an actual answer, do we?

Really, what would happen if:
Court: "Do you solomnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?"
Me: "No, my (religious) beliefs prevent me from taking such an oath, but I'll try to answer your questions as best I can."
What, by law of the land, would be the next thing said in the courtroom?

Would there be options discussed/presented, or would it be off to jail with jfcjrus, or would jfcjrus just be sent home?

Just wondering what you folks think would REALLY happen.
Regards,

[Coot]

Ok, Steve asked the question.....

....and, we discussed the legality of it all, blah, blah.
But, I don't think we have an actual answer, do we?



Actually, we do (http://globalaffairs.org/forum/showthread.php?postid=287629#post287629). Saying no is refusing to take the oath and the US District Court statutory reference clearly shows that refusal of the oath will result in a contempt citation.

[Techie2000]

You have the option to make an affirmation instead. This system really is a great protection in America. If people weren't required to testify and tell the truth, then corruption would be more rampant.