Witness testimony

Forensic scientists work with physical evidence, ie, "data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents or objects." Physical evidence is teal or tangible and can HteraHy include almost anything, eg, the transient scent of perfume on the clothing of an assault victim the metaboHte of a dmg detected in the urine of an individual in a driving-under-the-influence-of-dmgs case the scene of an explosion or bullets removed from a murder victim s body. 

Historically, physical evidence has taken on increasing importance in criminal matters. Court decisions have consistentiy looked askance at a defendant s admissions of guilt and even question eyewitness testimony. Physical evidence has traditionally been viewed as impartial and unbiased, and not subject to the problems associated with confessions made by an accused or the testimony of witnesses. 

Kehoe was a smooth and practiced expert witness at government and judicial hearings. He opened his testimony by boasting that he knew more about lead than anyone else in the world. He boasted that he had served as the Ethyl Corporation s medical director because I was the only person who was familiar with the toxicology of tetraethyl lead and with the occupational hazards associated with its manufacture and distribution.. . . In developing the information on this subject (lead), I have had a greater responsibility than any other person in this country. Kehoe proudly... 

The courts, however, are not bound by the decision of the Patent Office to issue the patent. In considering whether the application had utility, the Federal Circuit approvingly quoted the district court s determination that the application "did not provide analysis or insight connecting the [summaries of the six references]. .. to galantamine s potential to treat Alzheimer s disease [4]." In conjunction with this analysis, witness testimony given at trial was also considered. For example, the sole inventor testified that "when I submitted this patent, I certainly wasn t sure, and a lot of other people weren t sure, that cholinesterase inhibitors [such as galantamine] would ever work [to treat Alzheimer s disease] [5]." (Emphasis added). 

That s right. Thousands of people were there on the site at Auschwitz, but we can t make a house-to-house canvass all over Europe to find out who our witnesses were. We ve got to find those records. As for the rest of the Baron s testimony, it puts the linger on Schmitz alone."... 

If they don t know anything, then they can t very well swear on the witness stand that they knew the stuff was not shipped. Before I get through, I ll have an affidavit like that from every witness who won t give out with positive testimony for us. The defense will be left with nothing but an argument."... 

But there were witnesses who did not take the oath. They didn t have to. Their testimony ran between the lines of Buetefisch s reports from the site. Pale and shrunken, Buetefisch blinked nervously as Minskoff strolled over to the witness box. 

Burnham Carter, Lee s assistant, had given this testimony in the sub-committee record, which now confronted Ilgner in the witness box ... 

Special attention should be called to the services rendered by Nathaniel Elias of New York. An expert chemist of considerable renown, he left his business and came to Numberg to spend several months advising us concerning many technical chemical problems involved in the trial. As an expert witness for the prosecution, he bested the chemical geniuses on trial when — dramatically leaving the dock to take over from their counsel the task of trying to break down Elias testimony — they cross-examined him relentlessly. 

At the beginning of a lawsuit, a lawyer may collect many documents, mostly authored by a witness or including letters addressed to that witness. The lawyer then prepares to take this witness s testimony by oral examination (called a deposition) outside the courtroom to discover what facts the witness knows about the case. This exercise requires the lawyer to study and to analyze these documents to learn, through inductive logic, what motivates this particular witness, what prompted him to make the statements that he made in certain letters, what objectives he was seeking, and what admissions he might now make. 

Closely related to an ability to analyze and to understand people is an instinctively curious mind. Both facilitate investigation and revelation of facts—an important function of any lawyer, which like other aspects increases in importance with increasing complexity of subject matter. Chemists inherently tend to be inquisitive. This trait will help the chemist-tumed-lawyer during interviewing of witnesses, examining of witnesses by oral depositions, or in open court. When cross-examining witnesses, he will follow the witness s mental processes, learn what he may be holding back, and perhaps extract testimony that will be helpful to the lawyers case. 

The team may have slightly overstated the obstacles. Most of the information they sought (at least for studies done after 1960) were in conscientiously numbered, filed and listed volunteer folders. Computer printouts, correspondence, and testimony from relevant witnesses were still available. These resources should have been enough to answer almost all the IG s questions. 

People—Testimony or written statements from witnesses, participants, or victims are examples... 

A witness may have several motives for purposely modifying statements. Witnesses have information that the incident investigation team needs in order to imderstand the incident and determine the causes. They may choose not to tell the incident investigation team all of the relevant information they have. Sometimes witnesses will purposely modify their testimony or withhold information during interviews. AVhat are some of their motives for doing this Usually they are the same as those for not reporting near misses. The most significant of these influences is fear of punishment. 

A special application of photography is to record the viewpoint perspective of a particular witness. This can sometimes enhance the witness testimony, clarify apparent inconsistencies, and verify key items in question. 

The first was a report Testimony of His Excellency, NH Giovanni Gradenigo, member of the Council of Three. Clearly he had made a formal report to his brother inquisitors, and the secretary had written it as if he were any ordinary witness. The man who had summoned me to his deathbed was about to speak to me from the grave. 

Similarly, ethos, the testimonial dependent upon the expertise and credibility of the witness, is critical. Evidence supplied by an impartial and credentialed observer may estabhsh comphance with control standard operating procedures (SOPs), accuracy of documentary evidence, and suitability of code design. Whereas the accuracy of logos transcends its interpretation, however, ethos proof must be evaluated on the basis of its source. Who said so , How does he or she know , and Why should he or she be trusted become the key questions. It is upon the importance of ethos that the important issues of independent, quality assurance (QA), and confirmatory investigation hes. Most ethos testimony takes the form of reports, observational records, and certifications. 

Expert witness An individual that a judge qualifies to offer an opinion based on knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education, if the testimony is relevant and reliable. 

Perhaps the most peculiar factor to be considered when approaching a cultural artifact, however, is its uniqueness. This actuality makes its conservation a challenge—an attractive and interesting case raising numerous difficulties—because the artifact is often the only witness of the past and cannot be sampled to perform all the adequate characterization that would be necessary to understand traditional materials and disclose ancient technologies. Furthermore the alteration compounds (corrosion products) that are considered part of the artifact because they are a testimony of its past, should not be taken away but instead should be studied and conserved in place whenever possible. 

U.S. 157 (1999)), the Supreme Court extended the rules laid down in Daubert for admission of scientific evidence to testimony based on technical and other specialized knowledge such as that of mechanics or economists. The Rumho case ended the practice of some lawyers of putting experts on the stand to testify that the witness wasn t subject to Daubert because the testimony wasn t, strictly, scientific. 

---