On both my lawyer and my copies of my pre-lim hearing. When the police officer went up to the stand, the judge asked him to swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth-now i was present, so i know for a fact he did say, "i do". Now in these copies it does not state that! Why? Doesn't that make this whole report "false" in a way? He did lie under oath in my pre-lim hearing and therefore it proves it on this paper work! So, how is it that this specific line that is truly important in any case is missing? It honestly just finishes the judge statement asking if he swears to tell the truth, then the very next line it states, "You may be seated". Now, the ladies that type are professionals, they know not to make mistakes, and definitely would not leave that part out. So why is it missing?
General Practice Lawyer
You should sit down with your attorney and discuss this. It doesn't make the copy of the prelim false. Preliminary headings are not where the case is tried, if there are falsities you will have a chance to expose the falsities
This is for general information only. Nothing in this information should be construed as creating an attorney-client relationship nor shall any of this information be construed as providing legal advice. Laws change over time and differ from state to state. These answers are based on California Law.Applicability of the legal principles discussed may differ substantially in individual situations. You should not act upon the information presented herein without consulting an attorney about your particular situation. No attorney-client relationship is established.
1 lawyer agrees
Criminal Defense Attorney
There are many variations of the process where a witness is called and then examined. It is not particularly uncommom=n for the transcript to merely note that witness AB was called and sworn. No reprt of the question about telling the truth and the resulting answer. probably because if the potential witness said he would not tell the truth , there would be no record of testimony as he would have been excused.
If you are going to allow yourself to be lost among the minutiae of the trees, you will never see the forest.
The above is not intended as legal advice. The response does not constitute the creation of an attorney client relationship as this forum does not provide for a confidential communication.
Its a pre-liminary hearing--the case is not being tried--its not abnormal. No conspiracy. The officers statements are not rendered false.
NOT LEGAL ADVICE. FOR EDUCATION AND INFORMATION ONLY. Mr. Rafter is licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the US Federal Courts in Virginia. There is no implied or actual attorney-client relationship arising from this education exchange. You should speak with an attorney licensed in your state, to whom you have provided all the facts before you take steps that may impact your legal rights. Mr. Rafter is under no obligation to answer subsequent emails or phone calls related to this matter.