Is the witness believable? Can the witness’ statements be trusted? Those are the questions that the personal injury lawyer in Richmond Hill for one side must ask about the client’s witnesses and the witnesses for the opposing party.
Why might a lawyer agree to consider a witness’ statement?
A neutral party might have made that statement. A neural party would not have a stake in the outcome for the legal procedure that must be used to determine a claimant’s compensation. If a witness were credible, that could prove useful, especially if the case were to move on to a trial. Juries tend to believe credible witnesses.
What factors serve as evidence of a witness’ credibility?
Has the witness been consistent with the facts given in his or her testimony? Do those same facts agree with the ones that were stated by those that were involved in the accident?
Did the witness see or hear the accident? What was the witness’ location at the time of that incident?
With what degree of accuracy has the witness recalled the collision, and the surrounding in which it took place? A statement filled with inaccuracies would make the source of that statement seem less credible.
Did the account of the incident-of-interest seem plausible? Did it seem logical? Juries tend to believe testimony that seems plausible and is also logical.
What was the nature of the witness’ demeanor? Could it be described as pleasing? A witness’ attitude might be one that some members of the jury find objectionable.
Did the witness have an interest in seeing that either side came out as a winner? If the answer were “yes,” then that would not be a credible witness.
What factors might show that a witness had an interest in having one of the 2 sides come out as a winner?
Suppose that one or more of the witnesses had been riding in one of vehicles that became involved in the accident. Those same occupants would not make good witnesses. They could not be viewed as “neutral.” Each would have an interest in the outcome of any lawsuit that might be initiated by the driver of their vehicle.
Suppose that someone who had seen the collision had harbored a dislike for one of the drivers. Yet suppose that same person wanted to testify in favor of that same driver’s side. In that case, the witness with the acknowledged dislike could be called a hostile witness.
She did not feel swayed in favor of one particular driver. While she once disliked one of them, she now supported that same driver’s story. Consequently, she had no vested interest in the outcome. That fact allowed her to become a source of neutral and credible testimony.