Many believe the process is straightforward:  a witness testifies, and the jury decides.  However, the reality is far more intricate, especially in a criminal case.  In Los Angeles, or anywhere in the country, the burden of proof lies with the prosecutors. They must present their case first in a trial, followed by the defense attorney's cross-examination of these witnesses. This complexity underscores the crucial role of professional legal guidance, which provides reassurance and confidence in navigating the intricacies of the process.

But, obviously, it's more complicated than that, especially in a criminal case.  In a criminal case in Los Angeles, or anywhere across the country, prosecutors have the burden of proof, so they must present their case first in a trial. The defense attorney, who is representing the defendant in a criminal case, plays a crucial role in the trial. They not only get an opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses but also present their own evidence and witnesses to support their client's case.

Essentially, this means that a defense attorney has the opportunity to question witnesses after the prosecutor. This process, known as cross-examination, enables the defense to challenge the credibility of witnesses and present evidence that supports their theory of the case.

Jury Instructions

So, when a judge talks to the jury, the judge will basically tell them — and I'm quoting from Jury Instruction of CALCRIM 105, which is what is used in criminal cases at the end of a case. These instructions are a set of guidelines provided by the judge to the jury, outlining their responsibilities and the legal standards they must apply in their decision-making process. A judge is going to say, you alone must judge the credibility or believability of witnesses.  Essentially, what that means is that the jury determines whether someone is telling the truth.

The jury, not the judge, defense attorney, or prosecutor, has the ultimate decision-making power in a criminal case. This system of justice respects the jury's responsibility for determining the credibility of witnesses and deciding whether the accused is innocent or guilty, making them feel considered and respected.

I get a lot of clients who tell me, well, they don't have any evidence, and I'm like, well, they've got a witness ready to testify.  That's evidence.  Whether it's good evidence or not, that's a different story.  Whether that witness is credible, believable, or whether a jury is going to think that you're guilty, that's a different story.  But if they've got witnesses saying something that, if it were true, would meet the elements of whatever you're charged with, then they do have evidence.

A judge will also instruct the jury that, in deciding whether testimony is true and accurate, they are to evaluate the witnesses by the same standards, setting aside any bias or prejudice they may have. Sometimes, jurors enter the courtroom with biases or prejudices in a criminal case.

Meaning, let's say a juror doesn't like police officers or people who use guns, and there's a police officer who is going to testify. Then, those people have to set aside their bias against the police and simply listen to them as witnesses. They should not give them any more or any less credibility than any other witness, but rather assess their believability and the coherence of their story.

So, that's what they're talking about when they're talking about each witness having the same standards as any other witness, and that the jury has to set aside their bias.  Some people don't like people who use guns, and you have a case where a defendant is alleged to have used a gun during the crime.

That doesn't mean you automatically find them guilty.  You have to examine the witness's testimony, listen to it, and assess its credibility and coherence. Only then can you make informed judgments about the witness.

Witness Credibility

In evaluating a witness's testimony, the Judge will also instruct that you may consider anything that reasonably tends to prove or disprove the truth or accuracy of the testimony.  Among the factors that you may consider are how well the witness could see, hear, or otherwise perceive the things to which the witness has testified; how well the witness was able to remember and describe what happened; and what the witness's behavior was while testifying. This underscores the gravity of your role as a juror in assessing witness credibility.

I mean, you can see.  You're looking at the witness.  If the witness appears evasive or uncooperative during cross-examination and answers questions, you can address that.  If the witness says something and then that witness is impeached by prior testimony or prior inconsistent statements or by other witnesses who are more credible than them, obviously, a jury is going to look at that and make a decision on that.

So, there are all sorts of things that can be used to make a witness look good and credible, and there are all sorts of things that can be used to make a witness look bad.  Another thing that the judge will instruct jurors in a criminal trial is the witness's attitude towards the case or testifying.  Did the witness make a statement in the past that is consistent or inconsistent with their testimony?  Did the witness admit to being untruthful?  What is the witness's character for truthfulness?  Has a witness been convicted of a felony?

You, as a juror, are looking at this witness and seeing what type of a witness they are, so this jury instruction is telling jurors when this witness testifies in the criminal case — if you see any of these things for the good or for the bad, you're allowed to consider them.

So, suppose you discover that the witness has lied in the past and is now attempting to alter their testimony. In that case, you're allowed to consider that, and if the witness has a felony conviction for perjury or if the witness has some other conviction that is brought to your attention. You think that bears on the credibility of a witness; you, as a juror, are entitled to consider that.

When it comes to understanding the evidence in a criminal case, it's not just about having witnesses. The crucial question is whether these witnesses are credible, believable, and reliable.  This is where the guidance of a professional legal advisor becomes invaluable, providing reassurance and direction in navigating these complex issues.

So, if you're going to trial on your case and you know that there are witnesses involved, or even if you're just evaluating your case, I invite you to come in.  We sit down and review what witnesses might potentially testify against you, what they would say, and also what information we have to challenge their credibility and reliability, showing that they're not telling the truth. So, make the appointment today.  We'll sit down and review everything to see if I can assist you with your criminal matter in Los Angeles.