Judge Ashley Willcott, Chris Albanese & Katherine Smith Discuss Witness Testimony in Eric Boyd Trial | Summary and Q&A

TL;DR

A witness in the Tennessee v. Eric Boyd trial struggles to recall pertinent information, potentially impacting her credibility as a witness.

Key Insights

• ❓ Establishing witness credibility is crucial in any trial.
• 👻 Rule 803 in Tennessee allows prior inconsistent statements to be used as substantive evidence.
• 📁 Effective questioning techniques can prevent witnesses from avoiding direct answers.
• 🔨 Common sense can be used as a tool to impeach witnesses.
• 🤙 Multiple witnesses with varying levels of involvement are called to testify.
• 🤩 Weaving circumstantial evidence is a key strategy for the prosecution.
• 🖤 The defense may argue lack of evidence directly linking the defendant to the murders.

Transcript

Read and summarize the transcript of this video on Glasp Reader (beta).

Questions & Answers

Q: How can attorneys handle witnesses who avoid providing direct answers?

Attorneys should ask simple yes or no questions and keep the questions as simple as possible to prevent witnesses from evading answers.

Q: What does Rule 803 in Tennessee allow in terms of prior inconsistent statements?

Rule 803 allows prior inconsistent statements to be used as substantive evidence, going beyond just impeachment of witness credibility.

Q: Is a witness considered credible if they consistently answer with "I don't recall"?

In most cases, "I don't recall" responses are not considered lying, especially when referring to events that occurred years ago. It is important for the prosecution or defense to manipulate the aspect of prior testimony to support their case.

Q: What happens if a witness admits to perjury on the stand?

Prosecuting witnesses for perjury is not common, so it is unlikely that anything would happen if a witness admits to perjury.

Summary & Key Takeaways

• The defense requests a hearing to determine the witness's credibility and ability to testify.

• Rule 803 is discussed, which allows prior inconsistent statements to be used as substantive evidence in Tennessee.

• Strategies are given for handling witnesses who evade answering questions and how to effectively use prior testimony.