Many cases turn on the recollection of “percipient” or “occurrence” witnesses. These are people who used their senses to see or hear relevant evidence.
Less commonly, they might have smelled, touched or tasted something. Percipient witnesses contrast with expert witnesses, who are usually engaged in anticipation of or during litigation.
Expert witnesses rely on evidence that has been submitted to them so they can render an opinion based on their education and experience. They need to record what they relied on but don’t have a recollection of the events of the case as they occurred.
Honesty isn’t the issue
In his 2021 book, "Why the Innocent Plead Guilty and the Guilty Go Free/And Other Paradoxes of Our Broken Legal System," federal district Judge Jed S. Rakoff explains why eyewitness testimony in criminal cases is unreliable. Those same reasons apply to percipient witnesses in civil cases:
It’s an old story
In the celebrated 1950 film "Rashomon," multiple percipient witnesses tell wildly different versions of the same event. Today, the well-known unreliability of eyewitnesses is sometimes called the Rashomon effect.
What to do?
A witness may really believe the story he's telling, and that could hurt your case a lot. It’s hard to predict how the trier of fact will view conflicting evidence.
Witness unreliability is one reason why going to trial is such a gamble. Recognizing this paradigm should prompt you to choose mediation to settle sooner rather than later.
Attorney Teddy Snyder mediates workers' compensation cases throughout California. She can be contacted through snydermediations.com.
May 13-15, 2024
Join us May 13–15, 2024, for NCCI's Annual Insights Symposium (AIS) 2024, the industry’s premier e …
Jul 29 – Aug 2, 2024
SAVE THE DATE! 76th Annual SAWCA Convention July 29 – August 2, 2024 Hotel Effie Sandestin 1 Grand …
Aug 14-17, 2024
California Society of Industrial Medicine and Surgery (CSIMS) is combining its two conferences, PI …
No Comments
Log in to post a comment