Witness bias

[mdiaz1328]

Can anyone point me to case law regarding impeachment of an officer's testimony due to his bias? (California Law).

Thanx !

 

[tranquility]

Impeachment is the process to make a fact finder less likely to believe a witness for some reason. Bias is certainly one method. You don't need any case law. When the officer is on the stand and you have the chance to ask a question, ask, "Are you a police officer?" He'll say yes. Impeachment complete.

 

[Zigner]

OP - what "bias" do you believe the officer has in your case?

 

[CdwJava]

Can anyone point me to case law regarding impeachment of an officer's testimony due to his bias? (California Law).

Thanx !

What kind of bias are we talking about? Is this "bias" such that you contend he or she fabricated evidence?


- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

Impeachment is the process to make a fact finder less likely to believe a witness for some reason. Bias is certainly one method. You don't need any case law. When the officer is on the stand and you have the chance to ask a question, ask, "Are you a police officer?" He'll say yes. Impeachment complete.

Maybe I need another cup of coffee ... but ... what?

- Carl

 

[tranquility]

My sense is the OP is trying to get testimony thrown out because of a supposed bias because a person is a cop. He can't do that. Impeachment does not mean testimony disappears. It is an attempt by one side to show the fact finder he shouldn't believe the witness or to discount the witness' testimony.

OP probably thinks a witness being a cop makes him biased because of some reason. Because of this, all he needs to do is to prove the guy is a cop and then the fact-finder can use that fact to form an inference about the witness' testimony. Problem for the OP is, most fact-finders don't discount the testimony of a cop but give it greater credence.

However, the same process occurs if the OP has some other facts he wants to get out to show bias. Witness only ticket hispanics or women or midgets or whatever. All the OP has to do is prove it up. It won't dissappear the testimony, it only influences the fact-finder--no case law needed.

 

[CdwJava]

My sense is the OP is trying to get testimony thrown out because of a supposed bias because a person is a cop. He can't do that. Impeachment does not mean testimony disappears. It is an attempt by one side to show the fact finder he shouldn't believe the witness or to discount the witness' testimony.

OP probably thinks a witness being a cop makes him biased because of some reason. Because of this, all he needs to do is to prove the guy is a cop and then the fact-finder can use that fact to form an inference about the witness' testimony. Problem for the OP is, most fact-finders don't discount the testimony of a cop but give it greater credence.

Ah ... okay ... I was reading too deep into what you wrote wondering if you were shooting for something technical.

Now, I need that cup of coffee.

- Carl

 

[mdiaz1328]

cdwjava is correct.

I contend that the officer fabricated information and therefore has no credibility. Being the sole witness, the case should be dismissed.

I think I can cough up documented evidence. I am working on that part.

I am looking for case law that would help support my motion when I appear in court. Maybe I'm using the wrong term "Case Law". What I mean is, if someone else has used this and the judge allowed the testimony and on appeal, a higher court decided in favor (or against) of the defendant. There should be an opinion on that, I guess....

I'm just a schmuck so excuse the legal ignorance on my part.

 

[tranquility]

I answered your question. You can't get it thrown out. Period. Testimony is testimony and the fact finder can weigh it as he sees fit. He gives his evidence and you give yours. The judge decides. It is not a legal error if the court does not find in your favor unless the factual decision is clearly erroneous which often means no reasonable person could find those facts true based on the evidence. This is an extremely high hurdle you will not be able to jump without an attorney to boost you.

 

[CdwJava]

I agree.

The credibility of the witness is a matter for the trier of fact - in this case, the judge. If you can raise some doubt that he has fabricated evidence or made a false statement, you MIGHT be allowed to raise it. Keep in mind that most courts are not going to entertain such an accusation based solely on what the officer MIGHT have done without something to support the claim.

- Carl

 

[Maestro64]

I'll make is more clear than what Carl said.

Court get very concern when their are accusations of anyone who lies or makes up evidence in court. They take this very seriously and if you plan to impeach or perjure a witness, there are set procedure you must follow to do so. There is no case law on this it Court procedure or Legal procedures

If you know for a fact that a witness is about to say or do something that is illegal in court you have to notify the court ahead of time.

Trust me if you call the officer out in court and show he did something wrong it may not go well for you, Judges do not like these kind of tactic even if you 100% in the right.

If you have documented proof of what the officer did was wrong you can bring it to the judges attention ahead of time or let the officer testify then show the judge what you have but let him decide what the best course of action. Do not attempt in an open court to show what you are claiming the officer did was illegal and lying on the stand can put someone in jail.

 

[tranquility]

I can assure future readers, Maestro64's post is not a clarification of Carl's posts as Carl would not say such rubbish.

Court get very concern when their are accusations of anyone who lies or makes up evidence in court.

OK.

They take this very seriously and if you plan to impeach or perjure a witness, there are set procedure you must follow to do so. There is no case law on this it Court procedure or Legal procedures

While a witness can commit perjury, one cannot perjure a witness. And, as I wrote previously, to impeach a witness does not require any special process. When evidence is contrary to a witnesses testimony, it is said to impeach a witness. There is no special process. There are not special rules beyond normal evidence rules.

Trust me if you call the officer out in court and show he did something wrong it may not go well for you, Judges do not like these kind of tactic even if you 100% in the right.

One should never "call out" another in court true, but trying to prove up what he said is false is the main job of the defense. (Well, maybe not the cop, but at least one of the elements of a crime. For traffic tickets, it ususally requires making a cop out to be mistaken or a liar.)

If you know for a fact that a witness is about to say or do something that is illegal in court you have to notify the court ahead of time.

First, knowing for a fact is problematical as everyone has an opinion on what the "facts" are. Second, you are not allowed to speak to the court except in motions/briefs or with the other party there. I won't go into more, but suffice to say you cannot "notify" the court beforehand. In real (non-traffic ticket) cases this problem is dealt with by discovery. We discover what the other side is going to be able to say or prove and our side doesn't lie.

If you have documented proof of what the officer did was wrong you can bring it to the judges attention ahead of time

Nope.

let the officer testify then show the judge what you have but let him decide what the best course of action.

Nope. You present your evidence in your own time or show it to the cop and ask him about it on cross examination.

Do not attempt in an open court to show what you are claiming the officer did was illegal and lying on the stand can put someone in jail.

Open court is a great
time, and may be the only time, to claim this. If the other side's witness gets put in jail, SCORE! It doesn't happen much, if at all, but, if it did they could make a movie about it. (aka A Few Good Men)

 

[patstew]

I can assure future readers, Maestro64's post is not a clarification of Carl's posts as Carl would not say such rubbish.

And would never say it so badly, either.

 

[CdwJava]

And a "thank you" to Tranq, and patstew.

- Carl

 

[mdiaz1328]

Looks like I stuck a stick in the ant hole with my initial question.

Just so you are aware of my situation and why I feel I should impeach the officer's testimony.

here are the facts.


Officer measured my speed via LIDAR.
There were about four other officers working this same spot.

Officer stopped me by calmly walking into center lane of four lane highway, placing his body in the direct path of my vehicle and placing his hands above his head.

There was only one other vehicle on the road which ended up beside me when I stopped.

Officer FALSELY marked heavy traffic on citation. Why did he do this? To bolster his case.

Would any of you (the prudant ones) walk into the middle of heavy traffic?

This also helps my case in proving that the officer was convinced beyound any doubt that I was driving safely. Otherwise he would not put himself in the path of a driver who was driving "at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property". [CVC 22350]

Since my wife was going to meet me at the auto dealer down the road, she witnessed everything at the intersection at the bottom of the hill.

I plan to subpeona the tickets from the other officers to see if they marked LIGHT traffic, which would be the actual truth. I also plan to use any other victims of the officer as witnesses as to the volume of traffic on that street.

Now don't get me wrong. I have nothing against police officers. (my father was in the force for years). I just don't like it when they falsify documents.