Fact Witness Research Articles

Reconstruction of Regulation of Giving False Testimony at Pretrial Sessions in CaCorruptionses in Indonesia Based on Pancasila Justice

Based on the Constitutional Court Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014 Determination of the suspect as one of the objects of pretrial which in practice the trial process presents fact witnesses which has an impact on giving false information as referred to in Article 22 Jo Article 35 of Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of Acts Corruption Crime. This study aims to analyze and find a reconstruction of the determination of the suspect in giving false testimony at the pretrial hearing in Article 22 of the Corruption Crime Law in Indonesia based on Pancasila justice. This research is a qualitative descriptive research. The approach used in this research is social legal research. In this study it was found that the Regulation of giving false testimony at the Pretrial hearing in Article 22 of the Corruption Crime Law in Indonesia after the Constitutional Court decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014 has not been based on Pancasila values of justice, because law enforcement is against witnesses who give false statements in pretrial hearings. Corruption has not been regulated clearly and unequivocally in Article 22 of Law 31/1999, so that in practice there are differences in perceptions between investigators who are given the authority to determine suspects and judges who examine the principal case. Reconstruction of Regulations The regulation for the determination of suspects for giving false testimony at the Pretrial hearing in Article 22 of the Corruption Law becomes Paragraph (1). Everyone as referred to in Article 28, Article 29, Article 35, or Article 36 who intentionally does not provide information or provides information that is not true, shall be punished with imprisonment for a minimum of 3 (three) years and a maximum of 12 (twelve) years and/or a fine of at least Rp. 150,000,000.00 (one hundred fifty million rupiahs) and a maximum of Rp. 600,000,000.00 (six hundred million rupiahs). Paragraph (2). Punished with the same punishment as paragraph 1 (one) if the act is committed at a pretrial hearing.

THE OBJECTIVITY OF POLICE TESTIMONY IN THE TRIAL EVIDENCE

Crime and drug abuse in Indonesia have been considered severe cases. As in the status quo, the police are now intensively arresting perpetrators of drug abuse and ensuring that the law enforcement process runs against the drug users to make them responsible for their actions before the law until the trial. In practice, during the trial evidence, the police give testimony in the court as the party who arrests the suspected perpetrators of drug abuse. However, the testimony from the police who act as the witness for the drug abuse cases is vulnerable to the nuances of case engineering or torture in obtaining information from the suspect. This study aims to find out and analyze three things: 1. the objectivity of the testimony from the police who arrested the drug abusers in evidence following the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. the considerations of the judges on the testimony of the police who arrested the drug abusers at the Bengkulu District Court Class IA in case of Number: 271/Pid.Sus/2020/PN Bgl.) and 3. the decision of Cassation of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number: 1531 K/Pid.Sus/2010, related to the objectivity of the police testimony in evidence following the Criminal Procedure Code. This study employed a statutory and conceptual approach related to the judge's consideration of the testimony of the police who arrested the drug abusers. Considerably, it is not appropriate to present the police testimony as a fact witness due to particular bias on the confirmation of the results from the investigation, in which the police are most likely to have an interest in the success of his case in court. Keywords: Objectivity, Testimony, Police, Arrest.

Business Valuation Cases in Brief

Business Valuation Cases in Brief

A requirement for fraud investigation professionals

In developing countries, fraud and corruption are seen as a way of life, a norm of public service or a culture that cannot hope to disappear. Auditors specialize in error detection and treat fraud and corruption as secondary tasks in a particular business. The primary responsibility of a Forensic Investigation Professional (FIP) or forensic accountant is to investigate fraud in financial records. A certified public accountant is a witness of fact, while a forensic investigator or forensic accountant is an expert witness, not a witness of fact. They can testify in court as experts for either the prosecution or the defence. This paper aims to critically examine the requirements for fraud investigation professionals who need to be obtained by a forensic accountant in investigating fraud as one of the most serious financial crimes in any company. The findings suggest that forensic investigative professionals play a complementary role with government anti-fraud and anti-corruption agencies in strategies and policies to reduce the risk of systemic corruption. Findings also show that Forensic Investigation Professionals (FIPs) play an important role in reducing fraud and corruption risks in developing countries.

Speech-Language Pathologists as Expert and Fact Witnesses in Special Education Disputes and Civil Litigation Cases: A Tutorial

Purpose Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) are not likely to enter practice in school systems with anticipation of special education disputes, or civil and criminal cases that could involve them either as fact or expert witnesses. In this tutorial, we differentiate between the roles of expert and fact witness with guidance to assist SLPs preparing to serve in either role. Method Using two sample cases, we present details of conflicts that involve SLPs; Case 1 involves an SLP as expert witness and Case 2 involves an SLP as a fact witness. We offer information to guide SLPs agreeing to serve as an expert witness, important preparation steps for SLPs as expert and fact witnesses, and practice suggestions, including attention to ethical codes, in serving either role. Conclusions We caution readers that special education, civil, and criminal disputes vary by case, state and federal statutes, and professional and personal details. We draw several recommendations from the two sample cases that should inform and guide any SLP involved as a fact witness or as an expert witness in cases of dispute.

La producción de la prueba arbitral: las Reglas de la IBA v/s las Reglas de Praga

In this article we refer to the evidence in international arbitration, doing a parallel between the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration – better known as the IBA Rules– and the Rules on the Efficient Conduct of Proceeding in International Commercial Arbitration – colloquially known as the Prague Rules–, in relation to the production of documents, fact witness and expert evidence, especially highlighting the different approach between both guides.

La producción de la prueba arbitral: las Reglas de la IBA v/s las Reglas de Praga

In this article we refer to the evidence in international arbitration, doing a parallel between the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration – better known as the IBA Rules– and the Rules on the Efficient Conduct of Proceeding in International Commercial Arbitration – colloquially known as the Prague Rules–, in relation to the production of documents, fact witness and expert evidence, especially highlighting the different approach between both guides.

Impeaching a witness who has a mental Illness

In Collins v. State , 571 S.W.3d 469 (Ark. 2019), Ronnie Collins argued that the circuit court abused its discretion by not allowing him to impeach Lakeesha Jackson, a fact witness, with extrinsic evidence of her mental illness. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision. ####

Clinician testimony in suicide litigation: A cause to be uneasy.

This is an illustrative article rather than a research study. We offer opinions and recommendations about what we view as unfortunate clinician testimony in suicide-related malpractice cases, testimony that - inadvertently or not - supports or encourages inadequate care of suicidal patients. The principles apply to both psychiatrists and non-psychiatrists, although the former appear more often in our work. We particularly consider the roles and testimony, in court or at deposition, of psychiatrists, whether as defendants, expert witnesses, or fact witnesses. We cite examples of what we view as poor, disingenuous, dishonest and even dangerous testimony that we believe moves the profession toward unsafe patient care. The examples illustrate what we (and sometimes others) describe as normalization of deviance, pre-suit puffery, self-serving defendant testimony, expert pride supplanting testimonial responsibility, expert arrogance, expert parroting of attorney suggestions, witness ignorance and avoiding facts, unconscious expert bias, inexperience thwarting justice, misleading use of terms such as "predictability," and expert witnesses who lack the direct-care experience that jurisdictions often require in order to opine about defendant clinicians' day-to-day patient care. The examples often reveal concerns beyond the category chosen, and should not be expected to convey all of the facts of a particular case.

AZAS IUS CURIA NOVIT DAN EKSISTENSI KETERANGAN AHLI HUKUM DALAM PERADILAN PIDANA

<p>Curia Novit Jus: means that judges are considered to know and understand all laws,<br />therefore the court is prohibited from refusing to examine, hear, and decide on a case<br />that is filed under the pretext that the law does not exist or is unclear, but is obligatory<br />to examine and judge him. Judges as judicial organs are considered to understand<br />the law. Therefore the judge must provide services to every justice seeker who asks for<br />justice to him. If the judge provides services in resolving disputes, finds no written<br />law, the judge must explore the unwritten law to decide on legal cases as a wise<br />person and fully responsible to the Almighty God, himself, society, nation and state.<br />In a Criminal Case if the fact witness is not identified, the judge digs the facts in the<br />trial, through the statement of the Criminal Law Expert to obtain confidence in<br />deciding the case, the expert information obtained in the criminal case used to decide<br />the case.</p>

Medical Record Fact Witness and the Use of Medical Illustration in LNC Reports: When a picture IS worth a thousand words

Medical Record Fact Witness and the Use of Medical Illustration in LNC Reports: When a picture IS worth a thousand words

Curbing Law Enforcement Official Testimony Abuse: Overview, Course of Investigation, Structure and Terminology, and Summary Testimony

This article is the third in a series of three articles on lay and expert witness testimony. The focus of this series of articles is in significant part upon the testimony of law enforcement officials in criminal cases. The first article examined the prosecution calling of law enforcement officials under the guise of lay witness testimony to render opinion testimony, a practice supported by the Department of Justice, thus avoiding expert witness disclosure and reliability requirements in spite of the amendment to Fed.R.Evid. 701 clearly distinguishing lay from expert witness opinion testimony. It also explained and critiqued the concepts of “particularized knowledge” “skilled” and “treating physician” lay witness opinion testimony. The second article was a primer on expert witness testimony addressed to attorneys trying criminal cases under the Federal Rules of Evidence or state evidence codes modeled thereon highlighting the critical operative components of Fed.R.Evid. 702-705 and the discretionary use of a hypothetical question. This article, building on the two prior articles in this set, examines expressions of concern appearing in recent federal court of appeals decisions that sometimes prosecutors in presenting overview, course of investigation, structure and terminology, along with summary law enforcement expert testimony, and occasionally summary law enforcement lay witness testimony, have done so in violation of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Confrontation Clause. Since the 1980s the prosecution, particularly in federal court, has offered into evidence testimony by law enforcement officials, including participating case agents, opining on various items such as the nature, structure, operations, leadership, symbols, jargon, etc., of an organized crime family, gang, etc., identification of terms used to identify particular persons within the entity such as “captain,” “capo,” “regime,” or “crew,” as well as explain the meaning of communications containing “code” terminology. While admissibility for the foregoing purposes has been sanctioned by the courts, judicial opinion has at the same time expressed strong concern that employment of law enforcement officials as expert witnesses not cross the line from legitimate employment to “translate esoteric terminology” and “to explicate an organization’s hierarchal structure” and stray into the “illegitimate and impermissible substitution of expert opinion for factual evidence.” Substantial concern has also been expressed that the jury may improperly “place greater weight on [such expert testimony] perceived to have the imprimatur of the government” in part because “the jury may unduly credit the opinion testimony of an investigating officer based on a perception that the expert was privy to facts about the defendant not presented at trial,” as well as potentially “endorse the veracity of the testimony” presented during the course of trial by others. Finally, the testifying prosecution law enforcement official may improperly base his or her opinion testimony on conversations with non-testifying occurrence witnesses, codefendants and/or other law enforcement officials raising Fed.R.Evid. 703 and more importantly confrontation clause issues as well. The propriety or impropriety of law enforcement official expert witness testimony is affected by whether the particular law enforcement official (1) is also a lay fact witness, possibly but not solely, because involved in the matter as a participant, for example, an undercover agent making a drug purchase; (2) was the supervising case agent whether or not also a lay fact witness, as a participant or otherwise; or (3) is a law enforcement official testifying generally with respect to matters relevant in the case at hand having no personal involvement whatsoever. Finally, prosecutors have tendered law enforcement officials as expert witness in areas beyond broadly speaking structure and operation or coded terminology. Such expert witnesses have been employed to (1) explain the course of the government’s involvement with the accused and the criminal enterprise he or she is a part of; (2) as a summary expert at the conclusion of the case, raising issues previously encountered with hypothetical questions; or (3) are even more questionable, as an overview witness at the beginning if the government’s case in chief to give the jury a roadmap to follow.

Child Abuse and the Law

Across the United States, child abuse law is governed by state statute. Pediatricians must report suspected child abuse/neglect in accordance with their state's specific reporting requirements; failure to make a timely report creates civil liability exposures and triggers criminal penalties. The pediatrician's initial report may instigate further investigation by child protective services, and the reporting pediatrician may later become involved as a critical fact witness in ensuing legal proceedings, including criminal prosecutions, custody determinations, and medical malpractice controversies. The reporting pediatrician's testimony may influence the disposition of those matters and significantly affect the well-being of the involved children. As such, dutifully reporting pediatricians promulgate and engage in peerless child advocacy.

Ethical issues in forensic psychology and psychiatry

Summary Ethical issues in forensic practice have come into very sharp focus within the past year with the revelation that several psychologists were involved in the torture of detainees at Guantanamo. There was clearly great concern regarding the misuse of psychological tests and interventions in the service of torturing inmates. For instance, psychologists took techniques that had never been used in an interrogation and recklessly applied them to coercive interrogations, without any empirical evidence that these techniques were effective in such a setting. In addition, psychological testing was used to determine who was in need of “enhanced interrogation”, again an area, which had no basis in research, in addition to the well-established ethical standard to do no harm. It was therefore, unethical at several levels. All of the mental health professions have in their ethics codes or specialty guidelines, statements regarding taking reasonable steps to avoid harming not only patients but also others with whom they may work. While this issue of involvement in torture is the most glaring example, we will also consider less dramatic instances, such as those where mental health professionals conduct assessments and treatments without really thinking through the consequences of these assessments. Several examples of these will be considered in detail including the use of assessments and treatments in competency for execution settings, and the involuntary commitment of “sex predators” based on assessment instruments with very limited validity. Some of the codes of ethics will be compared and contrasted to examine how extensively these problems are considered or where they may in fact be omitted. We will examine several areas of ethical concern in the Ethics Code of the American Psychological Association, the Code of Ethics of the Canadian Psychological Association, the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology, the Code of Ethics of the European Federation, and the Ethical Guidelines of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law. However, there are a large number of other ethical standards, such as informed consent, competence, multiple relationships, and advertising that have varying degrees of attention in the different codes and guidelines reviewed. For instance, much variability is noted in the scope of different codes, some of which are applied only to behaviors within the practitioner's professional role, and others more generically to all of a practitioner's behavior. In a similar manner, notable differences are seen in whether the code deals only with specific behavioral standards or whether it deals with aspirational principles as well. There are notable differences as well regarding the conflicts between ethics and the law, when a governing legal authority orders a mental health professional to do something that would violate parts of the ethics code such as confidentiality. Another important area we will consider is the concept of practicing only within the bounds of one's competence; some of the codes make it explicit just what the concept of competence entails, and others treat it as a more global concept. Some of them also deal with the need to include diversity issues in the definition of competence. The conflicts among different professionals regarding what is empirical or evidence based is also considered, along with a candid discussion of the fact that different codes, and in fact individuals using those codes have varying opinions on what constitutes “science”. The concept of multiple relationships will also be explored extensively, especially looking at the issue of whether a therapist can testify as an expert witness or merely as a fact witness. While there is general agreement that a mental health professional should not serve in both roles with the same party, what exactly are the parameters of testimony if a therapist is called into court? Can he or she offer any kind of opinion testimony or just factual testimony? Informed consent is also treated somewhat differently in the different codes and guidelines. Notably some are very detailed, while others, are quite general. Growing out of these issues is another regarding examinees who will not participate in assessments. There are rather dramatic differences, which are explored in detail whether or not a practitioner can offer any kind of opinion on someone who refuses to be examined. The differences in the way confidentiality and privilege is handled will also be detailed as are issues regarding methodology, advertising, and use of assessment techniques. Finally, in a concluding section we will examine the strengths and weaknesses of each of the codes and guidelines and make suggestions for change so that we may eventually have a unified set of standards.

Receiving a Subpoena

Receiving a Subpoena

#Snitches Get Stitches: Witness Intimidation in the Age of Facebook and Twitter

In order to better understand witness intimidation in the age of social media, one must examine both the forms it has taken as well as the response by law enforcement and the criminal justice system. As this article points out, the digital age has brought with it a host of new ways in which witnesses may be subjected to online harassment and intimidation across multiple platforms, and those means have been used to target not only victims and fact witnesses but even prosecutors and expert witnesses as well. The article will also examine potential responses to the problem of witness intimidation via social media, including proposed legislation. And while the focus of this article is on this problem as it currently stands in the United States, it should be remembered that just as social networking is a worldwide phenomenon, the use of such platforms for witness intimidation is an international problem. For example, Arab women living in the United States who have filed domestic abuse charges against their husbands have reported members of their families overseas being intimidated and harassed through social media postings as a form of pressure on the complaining victim. And in Mexico, drug cartels use social media to harass and target those who report their actions.

The Role of Forensic Investigation Professionals in the Prevention of Fraud and Corruption in Developing Countries.

Fraud and corruption in developing countries is regarded as a way of life, norm in public service or a culture that cannot be wish away. Auditors concentrate of error detection and regards fraud and corruption as a secondary assignment in a given engagement. The primary role of Forensic Investigation Professionals (FIPs) or forensic accountants is to examine incidence of fraud in financial records. Auditors are fact witness, whereas Forensic investigation professionals or forensic accountants are expert witness not fact witness, they can testify in courts as expert witnesses for either the prosecution or the defense. This study evaluates the role of forensic investigation professionals in curbing the menace of fraud and corruption practice in developing countries using exploratory research design. Finding in the study point to the fact that forensic investigation professional plays a complimentary role to the government anti-fraud and anti-corruption agencies in strategies and policies to curb menace of corruption in the system. Also, finding shows that Forensic Investigation Professionals (FIPs) have significant role in curbing the menace of fraud and corruption in developing countries.

Maxillofacial Surgeon as Fact Witness for Medico-Legal Cases: Indian Scenario.

An Oral and Maxillofacial surgeon at any time during the practice will encounter medicolegal cases (MLC). There are lacunae in the knowledge and understanding of the correct method of dealing with such cases. Many of the practitioners are apprehensive and anxious as they have to interact with individuals and systems outside the normal realm of practice. In today's arena, it is of utmost importance to be aware of legal system and law of the land. An OMF surgeon needs to have thorough understanding in recording and maintenance of the details of all MLCs and presenting the same in the court. Professional guidelines for expert witness are often not well recognised as those relating to the clinical practice. Surgeon has an obligation to conduct him/herself to highest ethical standards. This article provides insight into the details of registration of MLC, examination and recording of injuries, collecting medico-legal evidences and writing a medico legal report. Also discusses the court proceedings and possible questions that may be faced by the surgeon in the court.

The bruised child; making your evidence stand up in court

Abstract At some point in any doctor's career, he or she may be required to give evidence in court and if a paediatrician, it may well be regarding a case of possible child abuse. The doctor may be acting as a witness of fact or as an expert witness. In either case, the doctor's prime responsibility is to the court and not to the instructing team or to the clinical care of the child. This is an important distinction as in legal cases it is for the court to decide on the conclusion and outcome of the case and not for the doctor. The doctor is there to put forward their observations on matters of fact or to give an expert opinion, not to judge causation or which sequence of events proposed is correct. It is the doctor's duty always to be objective, impartial and detached and to only give evidence within their area of expertise when appearing as an expert witness. This review outlines the requirements of the court and explains the duties of a doctor when acting as an expert witness with some comment on the duties of a doctor as a professional witness.

Compensating Fact Witnesses: The Price is Sometimes Right

Litigation often pivots on the testimony of fact witnesses. Unfortunately, serving as a witness may take people away from their jobs or interrupt their lives. It is therefore understandable that fact witnesses may want to be paid for devoting time to litigation. It was once the rule that fact witness compensation was limited to statutory witness fees. That limitation rested on several factors, including the concern that greater payments could entice fact witnesses to perjure themselves, might simply influence witnesses to shape their testimony in ways favorable to the parties paying them, could price justice out of the reach of some people, and created an appearance of impropriety. On the other hand, fact witnesses may be required to devote considerable time to preparing their testimony and later testifying when called, the vast majority of witnesses faithfully honor their oaths to testify truthfully, and witnesses’ biases can be exposed on cross-examination. In any event, over time, restrictions on witness compensation have loosened. But while restrictions on compensating fact witnesses are looser than they once were, they are not lax. Lawyers and litigants may not pay fact witnesses for their testimony even if it is truthful. The general rule, in short, is that lawyers and litigants may pay witnesses for time spent testifying, preparing to testify, or assisting with the litigation, and may reimburse witnesses’ associated expenses, provided that the amounts paid are reasonable. The general rule has major exceptions, however, as where payments are contingent upon the outcome of the litigation. Furthermore, the reasonableness of payments to fact witnesses is frequently disputed, and, even if payments to fact witnesses are reasonable, additional inducements and failures to disclose compensation-related details may be disastrous. As a result of such missteps, a court may order a new trial, sanction the lawyer or party or both, or disqualify the lawyer. In addition, the lawyer may face professional discipline, and the lawyer, party, and witness all may tempt criminal prosecution. This article examines lawyers’ and litigants’ compensation of fact witnesses, with a primary focus on lawyers’ conduct. After analyzing the issues surrounding fact witness compensation, the article offers practical guidance to lawyers weighing whether and how to compensate fact witnesses.