What does it mean when a Judge says a person would make a "bad witness".

[rondouglas]

If a judge says a person would make a "bad witness" without providing any reason to justify the claim, isn't that an inappropriate and prejudicial comment?

What does it mean to say that a a person would make a "bad witness"? Isn't that vague to the point of being meaningless?

Now if you say that a person would make a "bad witness" and offer evidence to prove that this person is a liar or a scoundrel, then it would indeed be appropriate to say that a person would make a bad witness. But to say that a person would make a "bad witness" without clarifying the position is bad judgerment in my opinion.

Am I right to suggest that judges should not use words like "good or bad" unless they provide evidence to clarify their statement?

Are judges held accountable when they make prejudicial comments?

[interested]

Lacking any link to substantiate the post as an example, how is anyone supposed to respond with any authority or validity to their opinion?

[rondouglas]

There is no link. The comments stand on their own.

The position that is taken is that a Judge is not supposed to be "judgemental" without foundation and prejudicial comments are not appropriate.

A judge is supposed to apply the law -is that not correct?

To be sure, judges are freequently prejudicial, but my question is about prejudicial or judgemental words like "bad" and "good" -I don't think Judges should use such words unless their meaning is clear.

Is that not correct?

-think about Judicial codes of conduct.

[rondouglas]

Lacking any link to substantiate the post as an example, how is anyone supposed to respond with any authority or validity to their opinion?


Best link I could find, with respect to the term "bad witness" is there is no such thing as a bad witness. (http://www.abanet.org/cle/programs/l09tns1.html)

[warhorse46]

If a judge says a person would make a "bad witness" without providing any reason to justify the claim, isn't that an inappropriate and prejudicial comment?

What does it mean to say that a a person would make a "bad witness"? Isn't that vague to the point of being meaningless?

Now if you say that a person would make a "bad witness" and offer evidence to prove that this person is a liar or a scoundrel, then it would indeed be appropriate to say that a person would make a bad witness. But to say that a person would make a "bad witness" without clarifying the position is bad judgerment in my opinion.

Am I right to suggest that judges should not use words like "good or bad" unless they provide evidence to clarify their statement?

Are judges held accountable when they make prejudicial comments?


Give us the incident in which this occurred so we can see the context the phrase was used. More info is needed.

[Jayne]

Wow...very "bad" (pun, intended) judgment on the Judge's part to use that word. Was it in open court? Was it at a Bench conference? Even then, it probably shouldn't be used..but at least it would be out of the ears of the jury and courtroom and discussion between the attorneys and judge. Better would be to clarify it...but again, in conference..that the judge finds the information provided by the attorneys that the witness would be "irrelevant" "hearsay" "unreliable" "prejudicial" "perjurous" or does not fit the "expert witness" necessity for the trial at bar, just for some examples.

would like to know the context, etc. about it. Sounds to me like the judge perhaps just "shot off at the mouth" without thinking? Or was it between he and counsel? There is more "relaxed" leeway there and space for explanation. If a judge told me my witness was a "bad witness", I'd want an explanation and opportunity to counter it. If he told me this "at bench", I wouldn't jump down his throat, but I'd certainly want backup and reasons for his opinion. If I didn't get it to my satisfaction/acceptance, then there would be a problem. He is to apply the law, indeed, but also court procedure and court rules. He may actually be attempting to protect the trial process but using the term "bad" instead of "inappropriate"?? dunno...

jmo

J

jmo

J

[rondouglas]

You sound like a competent lawyer.

[Jayne]

You sound like a competent lawyer.

Thank you.

J

[gnm109]

Whether it is appropriate for a judge to comment that a person would make "a bad witness" has everything to do with context.

Making such a statement in front of a jury just before a person testifies would be very inappropriate and prejudicial to the side offering the witness.

On the other hand, the same statement made in chambers with only counsel present would not only be appropriate, it's done very frequently and can be very helpful in preventing wasted testimony and also saving court time.

Judges have the power to prevent the admission of certain testimony that they feel is irrelevant or prejudicial to one side or the other. When commenting on a person's qualifications, it's not necessarily a comment on a person's moral character but more likely with regard to the personal knowledge of a witness or, if an expert, the lack of qualifications to testify about a certain topic to assist in the jury in understanding certain technical aspects of the case.

Furthermore, it's usually given in jury instructions by the judge that the jury has the right to completely disregard a witness whose testimony they may consider lacking in credibility or downright disingenuous.

Unfortunately, the OP here gave us no context so it's difficult to determine exactly how we should view the statement.