More Honesty in the Courts
 Pro Per Litigation is PROPER LITIGATION
|
Pro se litigants bring honesty instead of falseness into the courts because they and their witnesses usually haven't been coached by a lawyer what to say.
". . . Another fact little known to those who don't live in the court system every day is that there is rarely any earthly punishment for lying in court. There is, of course, the crime of perjury. . . . But anyone who has been around the court system for awhile knows that perjury is almost never prosecuted. District Attorneys justify this by saying they have learned juries won't convict anyone of perjury no matter how strong the evidence. Whether this conclusion is based on actual experience or myths passed down from their elders isn't clear. For example, several years ago Judge Roderic Duncan, of the Alameda County Superior Court, sent what he describes as "a slam-dunk case of perjury" to the local D.A. Judge Duncan pointed out in his letter that "one of the parties admitted in my court that he had lied under oath." The D.A. never even responded to his letter. One peculiarity Judge Duncan has noticed in judging at several levels of the court system is that small claims court seems to be the most perjury-free. He says,"day after day, in case after case, I recall people standing up in small claims court and testifying to facts that clearly damaged their cases. Things such as: 'Well, the light was either yellow or red, but I thought I would have time to get through the intersection on time... besides, that other car was coming on entirely too fast.'" However, Duncan also says that in Superior Court, "where I sat for many years, it is extremely rare to hear anyone admit something that might damage their case. For example, in Family Court, no one I know has ever heard a wage-earner in a child support case admit that he was earning overtime and therefore really should pay more support."
Duncan goes on to ask whether the fact that witnesses seem more honest in small claims court--where lawyers aren't allowed--is attributable to the fact that when a lawyer gets into a case, he or she will advise the client to lie. He responds, "In a few cases I am sure it happens, but in most instances I think a lawyer just points out to the client that if he admits he is still earning overtime, the judge is going to increase the support he is ordered to pay. The client understands that truth equals a financial hit and decides to lie." Is the lawyer doing something wrong when she explains to a client what type of testimony might result in a victory? Judge Duncan says "It depends on nuances too delicate to quantify. A lawyer who explains the adverse consequences of certain testimony is only doing his or her job. A suggestion that the truth be 'modified,' of course, is unethical behavior." - From an article at www.nolo.com.
Important Note: PRO PER LITIGATION SOCIETY DOES NOT INTERPRET THE LAW OR PROVIDE LEGAL ADVICE
|
|||
|
