Difference between revisions of "Competency to Testify"
|Line 1:||Line 1:|
At common law atheists, children, mentally impaired, convicted felons, accomplices, parties, parties' spouses and other interested persons were considered incompetent to testify because these witnesses could either 1) not be trusted to respect the oath or 2) had an interest in the proceedings. Today most of these witnesses
At common law atheists, children, mentally impaired, convicted felons, accomplices, parties, parties' spouses and other interested persons were considered incompetent to testify because these witnesses could either 1) not be trusted to respect the oath or 2) had an interest in the proceedings. Today most of these witnesses testify, subject to limitations.
Revision as of 10:49, 27 July 2010
At common law atheists, children, the mentally impaired, convicted felons, accomplices, parties, parties' spouses and other interested persons were considered incompetent to testify because these witnesses could either 1) not be trusted to respect the oath or 2) had an interest in the proceedings. Today most of these witnesses can testify, subject to some limitations.
As a general rule most witnesses are presumed to be competent and able to give testimony at a trial. However, competency may be tested for each individual witness. In the U.S. Federal Courts, competency is determined on a case by case basis. Following are some of the situations a criminal defense attorney may encounter regarding testimonial competency.
Following are general requirements for competency:
- Oath or Affirmation - In many courts every witness shall be required to declare that the witness will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken the witness' conscience and impress the witness' mind with the duty to do so. If the individual does not understand the oath or affirmation, then they may be incompetent to testify.
- Knowledge - A witness is only competent to testify if they have personal knowledge of the facts that they will testify. 
Competence to testify merely acts as a gatekeeper function keeping certain unreliable witness out of court. A competent witness is not automatically reliable or material. A trier of fact (judge or jury) may still discount the testimony is weightless.
If there is a question of mental disability then it is the duty of the opposing counsel to raise the issue of competency of the adult. If one party raises the question of a witness's competency to testify, the court may order a hearing where:
- The witness must answer questions as to their ability to tell the truth
- The witness is asked whether then understand what an oath or affirmation is.
- The witness is examined to determine whether the understand the duty to speak the truth in terms of everyday social conduct.
At the end of the hearing, the judge will determine whether the witness is competent to testify. The burden of proof is on the opposing party to prove incompetence.
The rules for children are similar to those of the mentally disabled. However, if a child is very young they may be presumed to be incompetent to testify. For instance, in Canada a child is presumed to be incompetent if they are under age 14.
If a child is presumed incompetent under local evidence law, the lawyer may still attempt to overcome the presumption by overcoming:
- The concern that children are easily influenced and suggestible.
- The presumption that a child cannot understand the moral obligation to tell the truth.
Even if the evidence is admissible, the trier of fact does not have to give the evidence very much weight.
Depending on the jurisdiction, spouses may be competent to testify against one another in a criminal case. In the U.S. Federal Courts this common law rule was abolished with the advent of the Federal Rules of Procedure. However, some states retain a version of the spousal incompetence rule. For instance, in New York one spouse may be incompetent to testify against another spouse if the issue is adultery. 
Because of the inherent conflict of interest, a judge should not be allowed to testify as to facts in a trial over which she is presiding. 
A juror should not be allowed to testify as to the facts in a trial over which she is a trier of fact. However, in certain circumstances a juror may be called to testify as to whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention, whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror, or whether there was a mistake in entering the verdict onto the verdict form. 
Dead Man's Statute
Certain jurisdictions may have enacted so-called "Dead Man's Statutes" which prevent certain parties from testifying as to business dealings with deceased individuals.
No testimony in civil case by parties, interested persons or predecessors, for the party against a dead or incompetent person about dealing with the dead or incompetent person unless the dead or incompetent person opens the door or unless the testimony is about the facts of an accident in a negligence case.
"Upon the trial of an action . . . a party or a person interested in the event . . . shall not be examined as a witness in his own behalf or interest . . . concerning a personal transaction or communication between the witness and the deceased person . . . except where the executor . . . is examined in his own behalf . . . concerning the same transaction or communication." 
- Federal Rules of Evidence - Rule 603. Oath or Affirmation
- Federal Rules of Evidence - Rule 602. Lack of Personal Knowledge
- New York Civil Practice Law and Rules 4502
- Federal Rules of Evidence - Rule 605. Competency of Judge as Witness
- Federal Rules of Evidence - Rule 606. Competency of Juror as Witness
- New York Civil Practice Law and Rules 4519(a)