Did officer violate the oath?

[NotACopOrLawyer]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state?CA

Here in CA the oath you swear at a trial includes "tell the whole truth."

The defendant asked the officer a question which could have been answered yes or no. The officer responded with a long speech designed, I believe, to mislead the judge as to the truth of the matter. He did not answer the defendant's question. Rather, he talked about something similar - but which he knew was not the same thing (I have seen him in action on previous occasions). His response was also designed, I believe, to get the defendant to use up the limited chances the impatient judge would allow her to control the officer's testimony. Which she did. The judge, who was new to the particular issue at hand (a nuance of red lt camera law) and also elderly, let the officer get away with it.

Obviously, if the defendant had been an experienced trial attorney, the officer could not have done what he did. But did the officer, by deliberately dodging the question, violate his oath to tell the whole truth?

Not a Cop or Lawyer... Or a Judge

 

[BelizeBreeze]

The defendent, at any time, had the right to tell the officer "I asked you a question which requires a yes or no answer. Please answer the question."

The defendent did not. Ergo, defendent blew it.

 

[CdwJava]

He answered the question. If he lied, then that should have been brought up. But answering the question with content not what the questioner wanted is perfectly lawful. The person doing the inquiry should have focused the question better if they wanted a specific answer.

- Carl