Serveur d'exploration sur le patient édenté

Attention, ce site est en cours de développement !
Attention, site généré par des moyens informatiques à partir de corpus bruts.
Les informations ne sont donc pas validées.

From Liberal Extremity to Safe Mainstream? The Comparative Controversies of Witness Preparation in the United States

Identifieur interne : 001633 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 001632; suivant : 001634

From Liberal Extremity to Safe Mainstream? The Comparative Controversies of Witness Preparation in the United States

Auteurs : Sergey V. Vasiliev

Source :

RBID : ISTEX:2DA47D926A5F30F46931C20529F802911BFD22A9

English descriptors

Abstract

This contribution examines the idea that partisan witness preparation in criminal trials in the United States amounts to a comparative anomaly in the common law context. In American procedure, parties are not constrained by straightforward rules and ethical canons in their choice and deployment of preparation techniques, save for a prohibition on subornation and use of perjury. The lax regulation of pre-trial witness interviews in the US contrasts with the stricter rules on professional conduct of barristers and prosecutors in England and Wales and the cautious attitude towards extensive witness preparation prevailing in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. These divisions mark deep-seated differences between these countries in what fact-finding arrangements are deemed optimal in the criminal process and what importance is given to witness spontaneity as opposed to a leeway for parties to shape the evidence submitted for evaluation to the fact-finder. Although comparative divergence alone does not render the US approach ‘anomalous’, the difficulty of reconciling its liberal practice with the trial system’s quest for the truth in a sense justifies this label. Some of the excesses of the current practice could be remedied and the truth-finding objective given a more prominent place in the criminal process if a stricter approach were taken towards the regulation of witness preparation in the US and legal and ethical norms were aligned more closely to establishing the truth. In distinguishing between ethical and unethical conduct, the rules should consider not only the mental element of counsel but also the objective effects of preparation on the authenticity and accuracy of witness recollection. While more research into such effects is needed, the article argues tentatively that the most suggestive and therefore objectionable techniques used in the US should be abandoned or subjected to more rigorous regulation.

Url:
DOI: 10.2202/1554-4567.1126

Links to Exploration step

ISTEX:2DA47D926A5F30F46931C20529F802911BFD22A9

Le document en format XML

<record>
<TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct">
<teiHeader>
<fileDesc>
<titleStmt>
<title xml:lang="en">From Liberal Extremity to Safe Mainstream? The Comparative Controversies of Witness Preparation in the United States</title>
<author wicri:is="90%">
<name sortKey="Vasiliev, Sergey V" sort="Vasiliev, Sergey V" uniqKey="Vasiliev S" first="Sergey V." last="Vasiliev">Sergey V. Vasiliev</name>
<affiliation>
<mods:affiliation>University of Amsterdam</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt>
<idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno>
<idno type="RBID">ISTEX:2DA47D926A5F30F46931C20529F802911BFD22A9</idno>
<date when="2012" year="2012">2012</date>
<idno type="doi">10.2202/1554-4567.1126</idno>
<idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/2DA47D926A5F30F46931C20529F802911BFD22A9/fulltext/pdf</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">001633</idno>
<idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">001633</idno>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc>
<biblStruct>
<analytic>
<title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">From Liberal Extremity to Safe Mainstream? The Comparative Controversies of Witness Preparation in the United States</title>
<author wicri:is="90%">
<name sortKey="Vasiliev, Sergey V" sort="Vasiliev, Sergey V" uniqKey="Vasiliev S" first="Sergey V." last="Vasiliev">Sergey V. Vasiliev</name>
<affiliation>
<mods:affiliation>University of Amsterdam</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
</analytic>
<monogr></monogr>
<series>
<title level="j">International Commentary on Evidence</title>
<idno type="eISSN">1554-4567</idno>
<imprint>
<publisher>De Gruyter</publisher>
<date type="published" when="2012-01-10">2012-01-10</date>
<biblScope unit="volume">9</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope>
</imprint>
</series>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc>
<textClass>
<keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en">
<term>Actual testimony</term>
<term>Adjudicative</term>
<term>Adjudicative system</term>
<term>Adversarial</term>
<term>Adversarial context</term>
<term>Adversarial system</term>
<term>Adversary system</term>
<term>Alcorn</term>
<term>Altman</term>
<term>American lawyers</term>
<term>Ample opportunity</term>
<term>Anomaly</term>
<term>Applegate</term>
<term>Atiyah</term>
<term>Barrister</term>
<term>Coaching</term>
<term>Coaching witnesses</term>
<term>Comparative controversies</term>
<term>Contradictory</term>
<term>Credibility</term>
<term>Criminal cases</term>
<term>Criminal procedure</term>
<term>Criminal process</term>
<term>Criminal trials</term>
<term>Crown counsel</term>
<term>Crown court</term>
<term>Crown policy</term>
<term>Crown prosecution service</term>
<term>Crown prosecutor</term>
<term>Crown prosecutors</term>
<term>December</term>
<term>Defence</term>
<term>Demeanor</term>
<term>Direct examination</term>
<term>Disbarment</term>
<term>Disciplinary</term>
<term>Disciplinary action</term>
<term>Disciplinary rules</term>
<term>Dissenting opinion</term>
<term>Eliciting</term>
<term>English barristers</term>
<term>Ethical codes</term>
<term>Ethical conduct</term>
<term>Ethical rules</term>
<term>Ethical standards</term>
<term>Ethical witness preparation</term>
<term>Evidentiary</term>
<term>Ewca crim</term>
<term>Expert witnesses</term>
<term>Extensive witness preparation</term>
<term>Factfinding precision</term>
<term>Factual accuracy</term>
<term>Factual context</term>
<term>False evidence</term>
<term>False testimony</term>
<term>Familiarization</term>
<term>Federal rules</term>
<term>Fire association</term>
<term>Frankel</term>
<term>Georgetown journal</term>
<term>Good practice</term>
<term>Gruyter</term>
<term>Hamdi ibrahim mango</term>
<term>Henning</term>
<term>High risk</term>
<term>Hutchings</term>
<term>Ibid</term>
<term>Improper</term>
<term>Inadvertent</term>
<term>Inclusive approach</term>
<term>Inconsistency</term>
<term>Independent recollection</term>
<term>Initial recollection</term>
<term>International commentary</term>
<term>Joint preparation</term>
<term>Judge kuniko ozaki</term>
<term>Legal ethics</term>
<term>Legal profession</term>
<term>Legal system</term>
<term>Legrande</term>
<term>Leiden journal</term>
<term>Liberal approach</term>
<term>Liberal extremity</term>
<term>Lubanga</term>
<term>Lubanga proofing decision</term>
<term>Lubanga proofing trial decision</term>
<term>Mahoney</term>
<term>Mcmunigal</term>
<term>Mierau</term>
<term>Misconduct</term>
<term>Model code</term>
<term>Model rules</term>
<term>Momodou</term>
<term>Momodou decision</term>
<term>Original recollection</term>
<term>Original recollections</term>
<term>Other countries</term>
<term>Other evidence</term>
<term>Other hand</term>
<term>Other jurisdictions</term>
<term>Other witnesses</term>
<term>Para</term>
<term>Perjury</term>
<term>Personal knowledge</term>
<term>Piorkowski</term>
<term>Pizzi</term>
<term>Potential witness</term>
<term>Preparation methods</term>
<term>Preparation session</term>
<term>Preparation sessions</term>
<term>Preparation techniques</term>
<term>Previous statements</term>
<term>Professional conduct</term>
<term>Professional ethics</term>
<term>Professional misconduct</term>
<term>Professional responsibility</term>
<term>Professional work</term>
<term>Proofing</term>
<term>Prospective testimony</term>
<term>Prospective witness</term>
<term>Prospective witnesses</term>
<term>Ptwi</term>
<term>Ptwi code</term>
<term>Ptwi guidance</term>
<term>Recollection</term>
<term>Rehearsal</term>
<term>Respective party</term>
<term>Restrictive approach</term>
<term>Rosengart</term>
<term>Rudin</term>
<term>Safe mainstream</term>
<term>Salmi</term>
<term>Same case</term>
<term>Same time</term>
<term>Shargel</term>
<term>Similar vein</term>
<term>Stricter approach</term>
<term>Subornation</term>
<term>Suborning perjury</term>
<term>Such discussions</term>
<term>Testimonial process</term>
<term>Texas tech</term>
<term>Third restatement</term>
<term>Trial advocates</term>
<term>Trial process</term>
<term>Trial system</term>
<term>Truthful</term>
<term>Unethical</term>
<term>Unethical conduct</term>
<term>Unethical witness preparation</term>
<term>Unreasonable risk</term>
<term>Vasiliev</term>
<term>Wales barristers</term>
<term>Whilst</term>
<term>Whole truth</term>
<term>Witness</term>
<term>Witness coaching</term>
<term>Witness conferences</term>
<term>Witness contacts</term>
<term>Witness credibility</term>
<term>Witness interviews</term>
<term>Witness preparation</term>
<term>Witness preparation practices</term>
<term>Witness proofing</term>
<term>Witness recollection</term>
<term>Witness recollections</term>
<term>Witness spontaneity</term>
<term>Witness testimony</term>
<term>Witness training</term>
<term>Wydick</term>
<term>Zacharias</term>
<term>Zealous representation</term>
</keywords>
<keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en">
<term>Actual testimony</term>
<term>Adjudicative</term>
<term>Adjudicative system</term>
<term>Adversarial</term>
<term>Adversarial context</term>
<term>Adversarial system</term>
<term>Adversary system</term>
<term>Alcorn</term>
<term>Altman</term>
<term>American lawyers</term>
<term>Ample opportunity</term>
<term>Anomaly</term>
<term>Applegate</term>
<term>Atiyah</term>
<term>Barrister</term>
<term>Coaching</term>
<term>Coaching witnesses</term>
<term>Comparative controversies</term>
<term>Contradictory</term>
<term>Credibility</term>
<term>Criminal cases</term>
<term>Criminal procedure</term>
<term>Criminal process</term>
<term>Criminal trials</term>
<term>Crown counsel</term>
<term>Crown court</term>
<term>Crown policy</term>
<term>Crown prosecution service</term>
<term>Crown prosecutor</term>
<term>Crown prosecutors</term>
<term>December</term>
<term>Defence</term>
<term>Demeanor</term>
<term>Direct examination</term>
<term>Disbarment</term>
<term>Disciplinary</term>
<term>Disciplinary action</term>
<term>Disciplinary rules</term>
<term>Dissenting opinion</term>
<term>Eliciting</term>
<term>English barristers</term>
<term>Ethical codes</term>
<term>Ethical conduct</term>
<term>Ethical rules</term>
<term>Ethical standards</term>
<term>Ethical witness preparation</term>
<term>Evidentiary</term>
<term>Ewca crim</term>
<term>Expert witnesses</term>
<term>Extensive witness preparation</term>
<term>Factfinding precision</term>
<term>Factual accuracy</term>
<term>Factual context</term>
<term>False evidence</term>
<term>False testimony</term>
<term>Familiarization</term>
<term>Federal rules</term>
<term>Fire association</term>
<term>Frankel</term>
<term>Georgetown journal</term>
<term>Good practice</term>
<term>Gruyter</term>
<term>Hamdi ibrahim mango</term>
<term>Henning</term>
<term>High risk</term>
<term>Hutchings</term>
<term>Ibid</term>
<term>Improper</term>
<term>Inadvertent</term>
<term>Inclusive approach</term>
<term>Inconsistency</term>
<term>Independent recollection</term>
<term>Initial recollection</term>
<term>International commentary</term>
<term>Joint preparation</term>
<term>Judge kuniko ozaki</term>
<term>Legal ethics</term>
<term>Legal profession</term>
<term>Legal system</term>
<term>Legrande</term>
<term>Leiden journal</term>
<term>Liberal approach</term>
<term>Liberal extremity</term>
<term>Lubanga</term>
<term>Lubanga proofing decision</term>
<term>Lubanga proofing trial decision</term>
<term>Mahoney</term>
<term>Mcmunigal</term>
<term>Mierau</term>
<term>Misconduct</term>
<term>Model code</term>
<term>Model rules</term>
<term>Momodou</term>
<term>Momodou decision</term>
<term>Original recollection</term>
<term>Original recollections</term>
<term>Other countries</term>
<term>Other evidence</term>
<term>Other hand</term>
<term>Other jurisdictions</term>
<term>Other witnesses</term>
<term>Para</term>
<term>Perjury</term>
<term>Personal knowledge</term>
<term>Piorkowski</term>
<term>Pizzi</term>
<term>Potential witness</term>
<term>Preparation methods</term>
<term>Preparation session</term>
<term>Preparation sessions</term>
<term>Preparation techniques</term>
<term>Previous statements</term>
<term>Professional conduct</term>
<term>Professional ethics</term>
<term>Professional misconduct</term>
<term>Professional responsibility</term>
<term>Professional work</term>
<term>Proofing</term>
<term>Prospective testimony</term>
<term>Prospective witness</term>
<term>Prospective witnesses</term>
<term>Ptwi</term>
<term>Ptwi code</term>
<term>Ptwi guidance</term>
<term>Recollection</term>
<term>Rehearsal</term>
<term>Respective party</term>
<term>Restrictive approach</term>
<term>Rosengart</term>
<term>Rudin</term>
<term>Safe mainstream</term>
<term>Salmi</term>
<term>Same case</term>
<term>Same time</term>
<term>Shargel</term>
<term>Similar vein</term>
<term>Stricter approach</term>
<term>Subornation</term>
<term>Suborning perjury</term>
<term>Such discussions</term>
<term>Testimonial process</term>
<term>Texas tech</term>
<term>Third restatement</term>
<term>Trial advocates</term>
<term>Trial process</term>
<term>Trial system</term>
<term>Truthful</term>
<term>Unethical</term>
<term>Unethical conduct</term>
<term>Unethical witness preparation</term>
<term>Unreasonable risk</term>
<term>Vasiliev</term>
<term>Wales barristers</term>
<term>Whilst</term>
<term>Whole truth</term>
<term>Witness</term>
<term>Witness coaching</term>
<term>Witness conferences</term>
<term>Witness contacts</term>
<term>Witness credibility</term>
<term>Witness interviews</term>
<term>Witness preparation</term>
<term>Witness preparation practices</term>
<term>Witness proofing</term>
<term>Witness recollection</term>
<term>Witness recollections</term>
<term>Witness spontaneity</term>
<term>Witness testimony</term>
<term>Witness training</term>
<term>Wydick</term>
<term>Zacharias</term>
<term>Zealous representation</term>
</keywords>
</textClass>
<langUsage>
<language ident="en">en</language>
</langUsage>
</profileDesc>
</teiHeader>
<front>
<div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">This contribution examines the idea that partisan witness preparation in criminal trials in the United States amounts to a comparative anomaly in the common law context. In American procedure, parties are not constrained by straightforward rules and ethical canons in their choice and deployment of preparation techniques, save for a prohibition on subornation and use of perjury. The lax regulation of pre-trial witness interviews in the US contrasts with the stricter rules on professional conduct of barristers and prosecutors in England and Wales and the cautious attitude towards extensive witness preparation prevailing in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. These divisions mark deep-seated differences between these countries in what fact-finding arrangements are deemed optimal in the criminal process and what importance is given to witness spontaneity as opposed to a leeway for parties to shape the evidence submitted for evaluation to the fact-finder. Although comparative divergence alone does not render the US approach ‘anomalous’, the difficulty of reconciling its liberal practice with the trial system’s quest for the truth in a sense justifies this label. Some of the excesses of the current practice could be remedied and the truth-finding objective given a more prominent place in the criminal process if a stricter approach were taken towards the regulation of witness preparation in the US and legal and ethical norms were aligned more closely to establishing the truth. In distinguishing between ethical and unethical conduct, the rules should consider not only the mental element of counsel but also the objective effects of preparation on the authenticity and accuracy of witness recollection. While more research into such effects is needed, the article argues tentatively that the most suggestive and therefore objectionable techniques used in the US should be abandoned or subjected to more rigorous regulation.</div>
</front>
</TEI>
<istex>
<corpusName>degruyter-journals</corpusName>
<keywords>
<teeft>
<json:string>witness preparation</json:string>
<json:string>para</json:string>
<json:string>applegate</json:string>
<json:string>barrister</json:string>
<json:string>proofing</json:string>
<json:string>vasiliev</json:string>
<json:string>comparative controversies</json:string>
<json:string>gruyter</json:string>
<json:string>international commentary</json:string>
<json:string>ibid</json:string>
<json:string>unethical</json:string>
<json:string>ptwi</json:string>
<json:string>adversarial</json:string>
<json:string>altman</json:string>
<json:string>professional conduct</json:string>
<json:string>salmi</json:string>
<json:string>witness proofing</json:string>
<json:string>piorkowski</json:string>
<json:string>lubanga</json:string>
<json:string>mahoney</json:string>
<json:string>witness interviews</json:string>
<json:string>rosengart</json:string>
<json:string>evidentiary</json:string>
<json:string>mierau</json:string>
<json:string>legrande</json:string>
<json:string>false testimony</json:string>
<json:string>witness</json:string>
<json:string>eliciting</json:string>
<json:string>direct examination</json:string>
<json:string>wydick</json:string>
<json:string>professional work</json:string>
<json:string>momodou</json:string>
<json:string>mcmunigal</json:string>
<json:string>subornation</json:string>
<json:string>third restatement</json:string>
<json:string>ptwi guidance</json:string>
<json:string>ptwi code</json:string>
<json:string>misconduct</json:string>
<json:string>pizzi</json:string>
<json:string>other witnesses</json:string>
<json:string>zacharias</json:string>
<json:string>professional responsibility</json:string>
<json:string>henning</json:string>
<json:string>atiyah</json:string>
<json:string>familiarization</json:string>
<json:string>adversary system</json:string>
<json:string>model rules</json:string>
<json:string>disbarment</json:string>
<json:string>witness coaching</json:string>
<json:string>lubanga proofing trial decision</json:string>
<json:string>witness conferences</json:string>
<json:string>shargel</json:string>
<json:string>frankel</json:string>
<json:string>hutchings</json:string>
<json:string>legal ethics</json:string>
<json:string>criminal process</json:string>
<json:string>preparation methods</json:string>
<json:string>rudin</json:string>
<json:string>alcorn</json:string>
<json:string>adjudicative</json:string>
<json:string>december</json:string>
<json:string>trial system</json:string>
<json:string>liberal approach</json:string>
<json:string>personal knowledge</json:string>
<json:string>extensive witness preparation</json:string>
<json:string>whilst</json:string>
<json:string>witness recollection</json:string>
<json:string>adversarial system</json:string>
<json:string>other evidence</json:string>
<json:string>credibility</json:string>
<json:string>fire association</json:string>
<json:string>crown prosecutors</json:string>
<json:string>prospective witness</json:string>
<json:string>lubanga proofing decision</json:string>
<json:string>ethical standards</json:string>
<json:string>other jurisdictions</json:string>
<json:string>preparation techniques</json:string>
<json:string>ethical codes</json:string>
<json:string>model code</json:string>
<json:string>hamdi ibrahim mango</json:string>
<json:string>factual context</json:string>
<json:string>truthful</json:string>
<json:string>anomaly</json:string>
<json:string>recollection</json:string>
<json:string>defence</json:string>
<json:string>joint preparation</json:string>
<json:string>false evidence</json:string>
<json:string>original recollection</json:string>
<json:string>criminal trials</json:string>
<json:string>adjudicative system</json:string>
<json:string>dissenting opinion</json:string>
<json:string>judge kuniko ozaki</json:string>
<json:string>ethical rules</json:string>
<json:string>same time</json:string>
<json:string>criminal cases</json:string>
<json:string>whole truth</json:string>
<json:string>zealous representation</json:string>
<json:string>independent recollection</json:string>
<json:string>disciplinary</json:string>
<json:string>inconsistency</json:string>
<json:string>demeanor</json:string>
<json:string>perjury</json:string>
<json:string>coaching</json:string>
<json:string>leiden journal</json:string>
<json:string>factual accuracy</json:string>
<json:string>actual testimony</json:string>
<json:string>legal system</json:string>
<json:string>ethical witness preparation</json:string>
<json:string>liberal extremity</json:string>
<json:string>ethical conduct</json:string>
<json:string>factfinding precision</json:string>
<json:string>wales barristers</json:string>
<json:string>preparation session</json:string>
<json:string>witness testimony</json:string>
<json:string>witness credibility</json:string>
<json:string>potential witness</json:string>
<json:string>crown counsel</json:string>
<json:string>witness training</json:string>
<json:string>professional ethics</json:string>
<json:string>respective party</json:string>
<json:string>original recollections</json:string>
<json:string>federal rules</json:string>
<json:string>previous statements</json:string>
<json:string>rehearsal</json:string>
<json:string>improper</json:string>
<json:string>contradictory</json:string>
<json:string>adversarial context</json:string>
<json:string>prospective testimony</json:string>
<json:string>coaching witnesses</json:string>
<json:string>testimonial process</json:string>
<json:string>other countries</json:string>
<json:string>trial process</json:string>
<json:string>unreasonable risk</json:string>
<json:string>initial recollection</json:string>
<json:string>high risk</json:string>
<json:string>criminal procedure</json:string>
<json:string>witness recollections</json:string>
<json:string>ample opportunity</json:string>
<json:string>georgetown journal</json:string>
<json:string>other hand</json:string>
<json:string>good practice</json:string>
<json:string>legal profession</json:string>
<json:string>similar vein</json:string>
<json:string>restrictive approach</json:string>
<json:string>witness contacts</json:string>
<json:string>witness spontaneity</json:string>
<json:string>prospective witnesses</json:string>
<json:string>professional misconduct</json:string>
<json:string>texas tech</json:string>
<json:string>witness preparation practices</json:string>
<json:string>same case</json:string>
<json:string>such discussions</json:string>
<json:string>crown prosecution service</json:string>
<json:string>crown court</json:string>
<json:string>inclusive approach</json:string>
<json:string>disciplinary rules</json:string>
<json:string>momodou decision</json:string>
<json:string>english barristers</json:string>
<json:string>ewca crim</json:string>
<json:string>trial advocates</json:string>
<json:string>crown prosecutor</json:string>
<json:string>suborning perjury</json:string>
<json:string>expert witnesses</json:string>
<json:string>stricter approach</json:string>
<json:string>safe mainstream</json:string>
<json:string>unethical witness preparation</json:string>
<json:string>crown policy</json:string>
<json:string>unethical conduct</json:string>
<json:string>preparation sessions</json:string>
<json:string>disciplinary action</json:string>
<json:string>american lawyers</json:string>
<json:string>inadvertent</json:string>
<json:string>courtroom</json:string>
<json:string>preparation</json:string>
<json:string>prosecutor</json:string>
<json:string>divergence</json:string>
<json:string>substantive</json:string>
<json:string>commentary</json:string>
<json:string>commentator</json:string>
<json:string>zealand</json:string>
<json:string>initial account</json:string>
<json:string>dishonest witness</json:string>
<json:string>orderly fashion</json:string>
<json:string>relevant details</json:string>
<json:string>material facts</json:string>
<json:string>ethical canons</json:string>
<json:string>apparent contradictions</json:string>
<json:string>confidence level</json:string>
<json:string>such preparation</json:string>
<json:string>liberal practice</json:string>
<json:string>several witnesses</json:string>
<json:string>other commonwealth countries</json:string>
<json:string>such effects</json:string>
<json:string>regulatory regime</json:string>
<json:string>ethical considerations</json:string>
<json:string>further applegate</json:string>
<json:string>volunteer information</json:string>
<json:string>honest witness</json:string>
<json:string>language suggestions</json:string>
<json:string>actual recollection</json:string>
<json:string>states sergey</json:string>
<json:string>presentational aspects</json:string>
<json:string>mock examination</json:string>
<json:string>practice examinations</json:string>
<json:string>coach witnesses</json:string>
<json:string>substantive content</json:string>
<json:string>familiarization measures</json:string>
<json:string>preparatory activities</json:string>
<json:string>comparative context</json:string>
<json:string>american trial system</json:string>
<json:string>individual countries</json:string>
<json:string>inappropriate conduct</json:string>
<json:string>attorney conduct</json:string>
<json:string>witness familiarisation</json:string>
<json:string>potential witnesses</json:string>
<json:string>objective truth</json:string>
<json:string>evidentiary sources</json:string>
<json:string>criminal justice</json:string>
<json:string>adversarial systems</json:string>
<json:string>undue influence</json:string>
<json:string>oral testimony</json:string>
<json:string>english system</json:string>
<json:string>criminal proceedings</json:string>
<json:string>international tribunals</json:string>
<json:string>favorable light</json:string>
<json:string>familiarise witnesses</json:string>
<json:string>adjudicatory system</json:string>
<json:string>unified protocol</json:string>
<json:string>comparative anomaly</json:string>
<json:string>different attitudes</json:string>
<json:string>broad discretion</json:string>
<json:string>legal traditions</json:string>
<json:string>mental element</json:string>
<json:string>improper witness preparation</json:string>
<json:string>trial lawyers</json:string>
<json:string>actual status</json:string>
<json:string>comparative study</json:string>
<json:string>forthcoming trial</json:string>
<json:string>civil litigation context</json:string>
<json:string>supreme court</json:string>
<json:string>strict separation</json:string>
<json:string>competent representation</json:string>
<json:string>english approach</json:string>
<json:string>unethical coaching</json:string>
<json:string>witnesses subject</json:string>
<json:string>professional client</json:string>
<json:string>clarendon press</json:string>
<json:string>special pressures</json:string>
<json:string>such interviews</json:string>
<json:string>inordinate risks</json:string>
<json:string>deontological standards</json:string>
<json:string>substantive matters</json:string>
<json:string>witness preparation methods</json:string>
<json:string>mock examinations</json:string>
<json:string>substantive discussions</json:string>
<json:string>specific guidelines</json:string>
<json:string>prosecutorial phases</json:string>
<json:string>answer session</json:string>
<json:string>witness contact</json:string>
<json:string>evidentiary process</json:string>
<json:string>public prosecutions</json:string>
<json:string>witness evidence</json:string>
<json:string>ethical dilemmas</json:string>
<json:string>ptwi protocol</json:string>
<json:string>trial testimony</json:string>
<json:string>standard practice</json:string>
<json:string>same order</json:string>
<json:string>suggestive techniques</json:string>
<json:string>specific rule</json:string>
<json:string>upper canada</json:string>
<json:string>australian states</json:string>
<json:string>legal policy considerations</json:string>
<json:string>western australia</json:string>
<json:string>civil cases</json:string>
<json:string>probable lines</json:string>
<json:string>special circumstances</json:string>
<json:string>australian practice</json:string>
<json:string>contradictory versions</json:string>
<json:string>client care</json:string>
<json:string>high court</json:string>
<json:string>contradictory evidence</json:string>
<json:string>integral part</json:string>
<json:string>oxford university press</json:string>
<json:string>comparative terms</json:string>
<json:string>preparation technique</json:string>
<json:string>same facts</json:string>
<json:string>commonwealth countries</json:string>
<json:string>limited circumstances</json:string>
<json:string>american approach</json:string>
<json:string>unscrupulous lawyer</json:string>
<json:string>individual witness</json:string>
<json:string>testimonial spontaneity</json:string>
<json:string>partisan influence</json:string>
<json:string>american system</json:string>
<json:string>trial chamber</json:string>
<json:string>civil litigation</json:string>
<json:string>preparation practices</json:string>
<json:string>prosecution case</json:string>
<json:string>continental systems</json:string>
<json:string>defense counsel</json:string>
<json:string>american commentators</json:string>
<json:string>preparation measures</json:string>
<json:string>original memory images</json:string>
<json:string>memory images</json:string>
<json:string>other trial systems</json:string>
<json:string>unrecalled details</json:string>
<json:string>possible changes</json:string>
<json:string>ethical implications</json:string>
<json:string>ohio state journal</json:string>
<json:string>more confidence</json:string>
<json:string>actual effects</json:string>
<json:string>ethical boundaries</json:string>
<json:string>past experiences</json:string>
<json:string>relevant facts</json:string>
<json:string>many cases</json:string>
<json:string>such practices</json:string>
<json:string>significant risk</json:string>
<json:string>foreseeable effects</json:string>
<json:string>admissible scope</json:string>
<json:string>testimonial</json:string>
<json:string>adversary</json:string>
</teeft>
</keywords>
<author>
<json:item>
<name>Sergey V. Vasiliev</name>
<affiliations>
<json:string>University of Amsterdam</json:string>
</affiliations>
</json:item>
</author>
<subject>
<json:item>
<lang>
<json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>witness preparation</value>
</json:item>
<json:item>
<lang>
<json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>coaching</value>
</json:item>
<json:item>
<lang>
<json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>pre-trial interviews</value>
</json:item>
<json:item>
<lang>
<json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>common law</value>
</json:item>
<json:item>
<lang>
<json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>professional ethics</value>
</json:item>
<json:item>
<lang>
<json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>witness spontaneity</value>
</json:item>
<json:item>
<lang>
<json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>rehearsal</value>
</json:item>
<json:item>
<lang>
<json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>law lecture</value>
</json:item>
<json:item>
<lang>
<json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>suggestive questioning</value>
</json:item>
</subject>
<articleId>
<json:string>1554-4567.1126</json:string>
</articleId>
<arkIstex>ark:/67375/QT4-CJVNWQ2S-Z</arkIstex>
<language>
<json:string>eng</json:string>
</language>
<originalGenre>
<json:string>research-article</json:string>
</originalGenre>
<abstract>This contribution examines the idea that partisan witness preparation in criminal trials in the United States amounts to a comparative anomaly in the common law context. In American procedure, parties are not constrained by straightforward rules and ethical canons in their choice and deployment of preparation techniques, save for a prohibition on subornation and use of perjury. The lax regulation of pre-trial witness interviews in the US contrasts with the stricter rules on professional conduct of barristers and prosecutors in England and Wales and the cautious attitude towards extensive witness preparation prevailing in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. These divisions mark deep-seated differences between these countries in what fact-finding arrangements are deemed optimal in the criminal process and what importance is given to witness spontaneity as opposed to a leeway for parties to shape the evidence submitted for evaluation to the fact-finder. Although comparative divergence alone does not render the US approach ‘anomalous’, the difficulty of reconciling its liberal practice with the trial system’s quest for the truth in a sense justifies this label. Some of the excesses of the current practice could be remedied and the truth-finding objective given a more prominent place in the criminal process if a stricter approach were taken towards the regulation of witness preparation in the US and legal and ethical norms were aligned more closely to establishing the truth. In distinguishing between ethical and unethical conduct, the rules should consider not only the mental element of counsel but also the objective effects of preparation on the authenticity and accuracy of witness recollection. While more research into such effects is needed, the article argues tentatively that the most suggestive and therefore objectionable techniques used in the US should be abandoned or subjected to more rigorous regulation.</abstract>
<qualityIndicators>
<score>10</score>
<pdfWordCount>32669</pdfWordCount>
<pdfCharCount>193331</pdfCharCount>
<pdfVersion>1.4</pdfVersion>
<pdfPageCount>69</pdfPageCount>
<pdfPageSize>612 x 792 pts (letter)</pdfPageSize>
<refBibsNative>false</refBibsNative>
<abstractWordCount>292</abstractWordCount>
<abstractCharCount>1941</abstractCharCount>
<keywordCount>9</keywordCount>
</qualityIndicators>
<title>From Liberal Extremity to Safe Mainstream? The Comparative Controversies of Witness Preparation in the United States</title>
<genre>
<json:string>research-article</json:string>
</genre>
<host>
<title>International Commentary on Evidence</title>
<language>
<json:string>unknown</json:string>
</language>
<eissn>
<json:string>1554-4567</json:string>
</eissn>
<publisherId>
<json:string>ice</json:string>
</publisherId>
<volume>9</volume>
<issue>2</issue>
<genre>
<json:string>journal</json:string>
</genre>
<subject>
<json:item>
<value>Evidential Rules</value>
</json:item>
</subject>
</host>
<namedEntities>
<unitex>
<date>
<json:string>2009</json:string>
<json:string>2012-01-10</json:string>
<json:string>2005</json:string>
<json:string>2001</json:string>
<json:string>2006</json:string>
<json:string>1 and 7-19</json:string>
<json:string>2002</json:string>
<json:string>1880</json:string>
<json:string>1995</json:string>
<json:string>2008</json:string>
<json:string>2010</json:string>
<json:string>in the Twenty-First Century</json:string>
<json:string>1985</json:string>
</date>
<geogName></geogName>
<orgName>
<json:string>US, the Supreme Court</json:string>
<json:string>Universal Camera Corp</json:string>
<json:string>University of Amsterdam</json:string>
<json:string>Central African Republic, ICC</json:string>
<json:string>US Supreme</json:string>
<json:string>Canada, Australia and New Zealand</json:string>
<json:string>Solar Turbines Inc</json:string>
<json:string>War Crimes Research Office, International Criminal Court Legal Analysis and Education Project</json:string>
<json:string>Princeton University</json:string>
<json:string>Canada, Australia, and New Zealand</json:string>
<json:string>American Society of International Law Proceedings</json:string>
<json:string>Rwanda, and the Special Court for Sierra Leone</json:string>
<json:string>United States and England</json:string>
<json:string>New Zealand and Australian</json:string>
<json:string>American Justice</json:string>
<json:string>Orazio Excavating Contractors Inc.</json:string>
<json:string>Anglo-American Law</json:string>
<json:string>Columbia Bar Ethics Commission, Ethics Opinion No</json:string>
<json:string>Lawyers Co</json:string>
<json:string>New Zealand and Australia</json:string>
<json:string>New Zealand As</json:string>
<json:string>Anglo-American System of Evidence</json:string>
<json:string>American Law Institute</json:string>
<json:string>Australia Interviewing</json:string>
<json:string>New York University</json:string>
<json:string>US Supreme Court</json:string>
<json:string>Bar Standards Board, Code of Conduct of the Bar of England and Wales</json:string>
<json:string>US and England and Wales</json:string>
<json:string>University of Chicago Law Review</json:string>
<json:string>University of Amsterdam Recommended Citation</json:string>
<json:string>Boston University</json:string>
<json:string>Canada, Australia, New Zealand</json:string>
<json:string>Ministry of Attorney</json:string>
<json:string>Adversarial and Jury Systems</json:string>
<json:string>US and England</json:string>
<json:string>United States Sergey V</json:string>
<json:string>US and the Commonwealth</json:string>
<json:string>American Criminal Trial</json:string>
<json:string>Any party</json:string>
<json:string>Georgia Journal of Legal Ethics</json:string>
<json:string>Upjohn Co</json:string>
<json:string>Ibrahim Mango Co</json:string>
<json:string>Canada The Canadian</json:string>
<json:string>Canada, Australia and in New Zealand</json:string>
<json:string>University of Pennsylvania Law Review</json:string>
<json:string>New Zealand, Australia and Canada</json:string>
<json:string>Smith New Court Securities Ltd</json:string>
</orgName>
<orgName_funder></orgName_funder>
<orgName_provider></orgName_provider>
<persName>
<json:string>K. Ambos</json:string>
<json:string>Jonathan L. Rosner</json:string>
<json:string>Kimberley A. McClure</json:string>
<json:string>Trina Gordon</json:string>
<json:string>Candida Saunders</json:string>
<json:string>Witnesses</json:string>
<json:string>D. Etherington</json:string>
<json:string>S. Ct</json:string>
<json:string>S. Vasiliev</json:string>
<json:string>Lee Bailey</json:string>
<json:string>Court</json:string>
<json:string>John S. Shaw</json:string>
<json:string>D. Luban</json:string>
<json:string>Paul Roberts</json:string>
<json:string>Peter A. Joy</json:string>
<json:string>William Pizzi</json:string>
<json:string>John D. Jackson</json:string>
<json:string>Elaine Lewis</json:string>
<json:string>William Hodes</json:string>
<json:string>Henry Rothblatt</json:string>
<json:string>Richard Wydick</json:string>
<json:string>Sandra Guerra</json:string>
<json:string>Practice</json:string>
<json:string>Shaun Martin</json:string>
<json:string>Betsy Hutchings</json:string>
<json:string>Bennett L. Gershman</json:string>
<json:string>Patricia J. Kerrigan</json:string>
<json:string>John H. Langbein</json:string>
<json:string>Marcus T. Boccaccini</json:string>
<json:string>Michael Zander</json:string>
<json:string>Laurel Baig</json:string>
<json:string>Monroe H. Freedman</json:string>
<json:string>Thomas L. Steffen</json:string>
<json:string>Marvin E. Frankel</json:string>
<json:string>Ellen Yaroshefsky</json:string>
<json:string>A. Watson</json:string>
<json:string>R. Mahoney</json:string>
<json:string>Richard Alcorn</json:string>
<json:string>Marvin Frankel</json:string>
<json:string>C. Stahn</json:string>
<json:string>Nicole LeGrande</json:string>
<json:string>Douglas E. Acklin</json:string>
<json:string>Al Qaeda</json:string>
<json:string>Patrick S. Atiyah</json:string>
<json:string>G. Walpin</json:string>
<json:string>Zacarias Moussaoui</json:string>
<json:string>Robert E. Keeton</json:string>
<json:string>Thomas W. Wagstaff</json:string>
<json:string>T. Ch</json:string>
<json:string>James A. Altman</json:string>
<json:string>Teshia</json:string>
<json:string>Jonathan Doak</json:string>
<json:string>H.R. Uviller</json:string>
<json:string>John S. Applegate</json:string>
<json:string>Paul C. Gianelli</json:string>
<json:string>Joseph D. Piorkowski</json:string>
<json:string>Ross Cranston</json:string>
<json:string>Peter W. Tague</json:string>
<json:string>William T. Pizzi</json:string>
<json:string>Robert S. Summers</json:string>
<json:string>Brad Rudin</json:string>
<json:string>Justice Burger</json:string>
<json:string>Stan Perry</json:string>
<json:string>Bruce A. Green</json:string>
<json:string>P.R. Romano</json:string>
<json:string>Bill Allison</json:string>
<json:string>Court Should</json:string>
<json:string>Fred C. Zacharias</json:string>
<json:string>Upon</json:string>
<json:string>Thomas A. Mauet</json:string>
<json:string>Justice Act</json:string>
<json:string>Roberto Aron</json:string>
<json:string>Jerome Frank</json:string>
<json:string>An Examination</json:string>
<json:string>G. Sluiter</json:string>
<json:string>D.C. Ct</json:string>
<json:string>Kevin C. McMunigal</json:string>
<json:string>Critics</json:string>
<json:string>Charles G. Monnett</json:string>
<json:string>N. Judkins</json:string>
<json:string>Stanley L. Brodsky</json:string>
<json:string>David H. Berg</json:string>
<json:string>Gordon Van Kessel</json:string>
<json:string>Peter J. Henning</json:string>
<json:string>Anthony Thornton</json:string>
<json:string>W. Jordash</json:string>
<json:string>Kathleen E. Mierau</json:string>
<json:string>Robert Traver</json:string>
<json:string>D. Protocol</json:string>
<json:string>W.Va</json:string>
<json:string>Randal</json:string>
<json:string>L. Shargel</json:string>
<json:string>Wigmore</json:string>
<json:string>John Henry</json:string>
<json:string>Mathew Rosengart</json:string>
<json:string>Mary C. Daly</json:string>
<json:string>Carla Martin</json:string>
<json:string>Minna Shrag</json:string>
</persName>
<placeName>
<json:string>Leiden</json:string>
<json:string>Rochester</json:string>
<json:string>Columbia</json:string>
<json:string>Yugoslavia</json:string>
<json:string>United States</json:string>
<json:string>Australia</json:string>
<json:string>Georgetown</json:string>
<json:string>US</json:string>
<json:string>Canada</json:string>
<json:string>Houston</json:string>
<json:string>American</json:string>
<json:string>America</json:string>
<json:string>Wales</json:string>
<json:string>New Zealand</json:string>
<json:string>Rome</json:string>
<json:string>York</json:string>
<json:string>England</json:string>
<json:string>Salzburg</json:string>
</placeName>
<ref_url>
<json:string>http://www.cps.gov.uk</json:string>
<json:string>http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/</json:string>
<json:string>http://www.nswbar.asn.au/docs/professional/legislation/Rules_april</json:string>
<json:string>http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/crim/cpm/</json:string>
<json:string>http://www.lsuc.on.ca/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx</json:string>
</ref_url>
<ref_bibl>
<json:string>Karemera et al.</json:string>
<json:string>Sydney: Butterworths, 2005</json:string>
<json:string>Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995</json:string>
<json:string>Sesay et al.</json:string>
<json:string>[1992]</json:string>
<json:string>Boston: Little Brown, 1940</json:string>
<json:string>Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003</json:string>
<json:string>New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1997</json:string>
<json:string>London, 2004</json:string>
<json:string>Little Brown, 1973</json:string>
<json:string>Sungalia et al.</json:string>
<json:string>Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff/Brill, 2009</json:string>
<json:string>Colorado Springs: Sheppard's/ McGraw-Hill, 1985</json:string>
<json:string>Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987</json:string>
<json:string>Limaj et al.</json:string>
<json:string>American Law Institute, 2000</json:string>
<json:string>R. Karemaker et al.</json:string>
<json:string>March 2008</json:string>
<json:string>[2005]</json:string>
<json:string>Milutinović et al.</json:string>
<json:string>Auckland: Oxford University Press, 1989</json:string>
</ref_bibl>
<bibl></bibl>
</unitex>
</namedEntities>
<ark>
<json:string>ark:/67375/QT4-CJVNWQ2S-Z</json:string>
</ark>
<categories>
<inist>
<json:string>1 - sciences humaines et sociales</json:string>
</inist>
</categories>
<publicationDate>2012</publicationDate>
<copyrightDate>2012</copyrightDate>
<doi>
<json:string>10.2202/1554-4567.1126</json:string>
</doi>
<id>2DA47D926A5F30F46931C20529F802911BFD22A9</id>
<score>1</score>
<fulltext>
<json:item>
<extension>pdf</extension>
<original>true</original>
<mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype>
<uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/2DA47D926A5F30F46931C20529F802911BFD22A9/fulltext/pdf</uri>
</json:item>
<json:item>
<extension>zip</extension>
<original>false</original>
<mimetype>application/zip</mimetype>
<uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/2DA47D926A5F30F46931C20529F802911BFD22A9/fulltext/zip</uri>
</json:item>
<istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/2DA47D926A5F30F46931C20529F802911BFD22A9/fulltext/tei">
<teiHeader>
<fileDesc>
<titleStmt>
<title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">From Liberal Extremity to Safe Mainstream? The Comparative Controversies of Witness Preparation in the United States</title>
<respStmt>
<resp>Références bibliographiques récupérées via GROBID</resp>
<name resp="ISTEX-API">ISTEX-API (INIST-CNRS)</name>
</respStmt>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt>
<authority>ISTEX</authority>
<publisher scheme="https://publisher-list.data.istex.fr">De Gruyter</publisher>
<availability>
<licence>
<p>©2012 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston</p>
</licence>
<p scheme="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-B4QPMMZB-D">degruyter-journals</p>
</availability>
<date>2012-01-10</date>
</publicationStmt>
<notesStmt>
<note type="research-article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-1JC4F85T-7">research-article</note>
<note type="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note>
</notesStmt>
<sourceDesc>
<biblStruct type="inbook">
<analytic>
<title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">From Liberal Extremity to Safe Mainstream? The Comparative Controversies of Witness Preparation in the United States</title>
<author xml:id="author-0000">
<persName>
<forename type="first">Sergey V.</forename>
<surname>Vasiliev</surname>
</persName>
<affiliation>University of Amsterdam</affiliation>
</author>
<idno type="istex">2DA47D926A5F30F46931C20529F802911BFD22A9</idno>
<idno type="ark">ark:/67375/QT4-CJVNWQ2S-Z</idno>
<idno type="DOI">10.2202/1554-4567.1126</idno>
<idno type="article-id">1554-4567.1126</idno>
<idno type="pdf">1554-4567.1126.pdf</idno>
</analytic>
<monogr>
<title level="j">International Commentary on Evidence</title>
<idno type="eISSN">1554-4567</idno>
<idno type="publisher-id">ice</idno>
<imprint>
<publisher>De Gruyter</publisher>
<date type="published" when="2012-01-10"></date>
<biblScope unit="volume">9</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope>
</imprint>
</monogr>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc>
<creation>
<date>2012-01-10</date>
</creation>
<langUsage>
<language ident="en">en</language>
</langUsage>
<abstract xml:lang="en">
<p>This contribution examines the idea that partisan witness preparation in criminal trials in the United States amounts to a comparative anomaly in the common law context. In American procedure, parties are not constrained by straightforward rules and ethical canons in their choice and deployment of preparation techniques, save for a prohibition on subornation and use of perjury. The lax regulation of pre-trial witness interviews in the US contrasts with the stricter rules on professional conduct of barristers and prosecutors in England and Wales and the cautious attitude towards extensive witness preparation prevailing in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. These divisions mark deep-seated differences between these countries in what fact-finding arrangements are deemed optimal in the criminal process and what importance is given to witness spontaneity as opposed to a leeway for parties to shape the evidence submitted for evaluation to the fact-finder. Although comparative divergence alone does not render the US approach ‘anomalous’, the difficulty of reconciling its liberal practice with the trial system’s quest for the truth in a sense justifies this label. Some of the excesses of the current practice could be remedied and the truth-finding objective given a more prominent place in the criminal process if a stricter approach were taken towards the regulation of witness preparation in the US and legal and ethical norms were aligned more closely to establishing the truth. In distinguishing between ethical and unethical conduct, the rules should consider not only the mental element of counsel but also the objective effects of preparation on the authenticity and accuracy of witness recollection. While more research into such effects is needed, the article argues tentatively that the most suggestive and therefore objectionable techniques used in the US should be abandoned or subjected to more rigorous regulation.</p>
</abstract>
<textClass>
<keywords scheme="keyword">
<list>
<head>Keywords</head>
<item>
<term>witness preparation</term>
</item>
<item>
<term>coaching</term>
</item>
<item>
<term>pre-trial interviews</term>
</item>
<item>
<term>common law</term>
</item>
<item>
<term>professional ethics</term>
</item>
<item>
<term>witness spontaneity</term>
</item>
<item>
<term>rehearsal</term>
</item>
<item>
<term>law lecture</term>
</item>
<item>
<term>suggestive questioning</term>
</item>
</list>
</keywords>
</textClass>
<textClass>
<keywords scheme="Journal Subject">
<list>
<head></head>
<item>
<term>Evidential Rules</term>
</item>
</list>
</keywords>
</textClass>
</profileDesc>
<revisionDesc>
<change when="2012-01-10">Created</change>
<change when="2012-01-10">Published</change>
<change xml:id="refBibs-istex" who="#ISTEX-API" when="2017-10-5">References added</change>
</revisionDesc>
</teiHeader>
</istex:fulltextTEI>
<json:item>
<extension>txt</extension>
<original>false</original>
<mimetype>text/plain</mimetype>
<uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/2DA47D926A5F30F46931C20529F802911BFD22A9/fulltext/txt</uri>
</json:item>
</fulltext>
<metadata>
<istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus degruyter-journals" wicri:toSee="no header">
<istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration>
<istex:docType PUBLIC="-//Atypon//DTD Atypon Systems Journal Archiving and Interchange NLM DTD v3.0.2 20101108//EN" URI="atypon_archive-interchange-dtd-3.0.2/atypon-archivearticle3.dtd" name="istex:docType"></istex:docType>
<istex:document>
<article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="EN">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">ice</journal-id>
<journal-title-group>
<journal-title>International Commentary on Evidence</journal-title>
</journal-title-group>
<issn pub-type="epub">1554-4567</issn>
<publisher>
<publisher-name>De Gruyter</publisher-name>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">1554-4567.1126</article-id>
<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.2202/1554-4567.1126</article-id>
<article-categories>
<subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
<subject>Article</subject>
</subj-group>
<subj-group>
<subject>Evidential Rules</subject>
</subj-group>
</article-categories>
<title-group>
<article-title>From Liberal Extremity to Safe Mainstream? The Comparative Controversies of Witness Preparation in the United States</article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Vasiliev</surname>
<given-names>Sergey V.</given-names>
</name>
<aff id="a1">
<italic>University of Amsterdam</italic>
</aff>
</contrib>
</contrib-group>
<pub-date pub-type="epub">
<day>10</day>
<month>1</month>
<year>2012</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>9</volume>
<issue>2</issue>
<permissions>
<copyright-statement>©2012 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston</copyright-statement>
<copyright-year>2012</copyright-year>
</permissions>
<related-article related-article-type="pdf" xlink:href="1554-4567.1126.pdf"></related-article>
<abstract>
<p>This contribution examines the idea that partisan witness preparation in criminal trials in the United States amounts to a comparative anomaly in the common law context. In American procedure, parties are not constrained by straightforward rules and ethical canons in their choice and deployment of preparation techniques, save for a prohibition on subornation and use of perjury. The lax regulation of pre-trial witness interviews in the US contrasts with the stricter rules on professional conduct of barristers and prosecutors in England and Wales and the cautious attitude towards extensive witness preparation prevailing in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. These divisions mark deep-seated differences between these countries in what fact-finding arrangements are deemed optimal in the criminal process and what importance is given to witness spontaneity as opposed to a leeway for parties to shape the evidence submitted for evaluation to the fact-finder. Although comparative divergence alone does not render the US approach ‘anomalous’, the difficulty of reconciling its liberal practice with the trial system’s quest for the truth in a sense justifies this label. Some of the excesses of the current practice could be remedied and the truth-finding objective given a more prominent place in the criminal process if a stricter approach were taken towards the regulation of witness preparation in the US and legal and ethical norms were aligned more closely to establishing the truth. In distinguishing between ethical and unethical conduct, the rules should consider not only the mental element of counsel but also the objective effects of preparation on the authenticity and accuracy of witness recollection. While more research into such effects is needed, the article argues tentatively that the most suggestive and therefore objectionable techniques used in the US should be abandoned or subjected to more rigorous regulation.</p>
</abstract>
<kwd-group>
<title>Keywords</title>
<kwd>witness preparation</kwd>
<x>, </x>
<kwd>coaching</kwd>
<x>, </x>
<kwd>pre-trial interviews</kwd>
<x>, </x>
<kwd>common law</kwd>
<x>, </x>
<kwd>professional ethics</kwd>
<x>, </x>
<kwd>witness spontaneity</kwd>
<x>, </x>
<kwd>rehearsal</kwd>
<x>, </x>
<kwd>law lecture</kwd>
<x>, </x>
<kwd>suggestive questioning</kwd>
</kwd-group>
<counts>
<page-count count="69"></page-count>
</counts>
</article-meta>
</front>
</article>
</istex:document>
</istex:metadataXml>
<mods version="3.6">
<titleInfo lang="en">
<title>From Liberal Extremity to Safe Mainstream? The Comparative Controversies of Witness Preparation in the United States</title>
</titleInfo>
<titleInfo type="alternative" lang="en" contentType="CDATA">
<title>From Liberal Extremity to Safe Mainstream? The Comparative Controversies of Witness Preparation in the United States</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Sergey V.</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Vasiliev</namePart>
<affiliation>University of Amsterdam</affiliation>
</name>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<genre type="research-article" displayLabel="research-article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-1JC4F85T-7">research-article</genre>
<originInfo>
<publisher>De Gruyter</publisher>
<dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2012-01-10</dateIssued>
<dateCreated encoding="w3cdtf">2012-01-10</dateCreated>
<copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2012</copyrightDate>
</originInfo>
<language>
<languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm>
<languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm>
</language>
<abstract lang="en">This contribution examines the idea that partisan witness preparation in criminal trials in the United States amounts to a comparative anomaly in the common law context. In American procedure, parties are not constrained by straightforward rules and ethical canons in their choice and deployment of preparation techniques, save for a prohibition on subornation and use of perjury. The lax regulation of pre-trial witness interviews in the US contrasts with the stricter rules on professional conduct of barristers and prosecutors in England and Wales and the cautious attitude towards extensive witness preparation prevailing in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. These divisions mark deep-seated differences between these countries in what fact-finding arrangements are deemed optimal in the criminal process and what importance is given to witness spontaneity as opposed to a leeway for parties to shape the evidence submitted for evaluation to the fact-finder. Although comparative divergence alone does not render the US approach ‘anomalous’, the difficulty of reconciling its liberal practice with the trial system’s quest for the truth in a sense justifies this label. Some of the excesses of the current practice could be remedied and the truth-finding objective given a more prominent place in the criminal process if a stricter approach were taken towards the regulation of witness preparation in the US and legal and ethical norms were aligned more closely to establishing the truth. In distinguishing between ethical and unethical conduct, the rules should consider not only the mental element of counsel but also the objective effects of preparation on the authenticity and accuracy of witness recollection. While more research into such effects is needed, the article argues tentatively that the most suggestive and therefore objectionable techniques used in the US should be abandoned or subjected to more rigorous regulation.</abstract>
<subject>
<genre>Keywords</genre>
<topic>witness preparation</topic>
<topic>coaching</topic>
<topic>pre-trial interviews</topic>
<topic>common law</topic>
<topic>professional ethics</topic>
<topic>witness spontaneity</topic>
<topic>rehearsal</topic>
<topic>law lecture</topic>
<topic>suggestive questioning</topic>
</subject>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>International Commentary on Evidence</title>
</titleInfo>
<genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre>
<originInfo></originInfo>
<subject>
<topic>Evidential Rules</topic>
</subject>
<identifier type="eISSN">1554-4567</identifier>
<identifier type="PublisherID">ice</identifier>
<part>
<date>2012</date>
<detail type="volume">
<caption>vol.</caption>
<number>9</number>
</detail>
<detail type="issue">
<caption>no.</caption>
<number>2</number>
</detail>
<extent unit="pages">
<total>69</total>
</extent>
</part>
</relatedItem>
<identifier type="istex">2DA47D926A5F30F46931C20529F802911BFD22A9</identifier>
<identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/QT4-CJVNWQ2S-Z</identifier>
<identifier type="DOI">10.2202/1554-4567.1126</identifier>
<identifier type="ArticleID">1554-4567.1126</identifier>
<identifier type="pdf">1554-4567.1126.pdf</identifier>
<accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">©2012 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston</accessCondition>
<recordInfo>
<recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-B4QPMMZB-D">degruyter-journals</recordContentSource>
<recordOrigin>©2012 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston</recordOrigin>
</recordInfo>
</mods>
<json:item>
<extension>json</extension>
<original>false</original>
<mimetype>application/json</mimetype>
<uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/2DA47D926A5F30F46931C20529F802911BFD22A9/metadata/json</uri>
</json:item>
</metadata>
<serie></serie>
</istex>
</record>

Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)

EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001633 | SxmlIndent | more

Ou

HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 001633 | SxmlIndent | more

Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri

{{Explor lien
   |wiki=    Wicri/Santé
   |area=    EdenteV2
   |flux=    Istex
   |étape=   Corpus
   |type=    RBID
   |clé=     ISTEX:2DA47D926A5F30F46931C20529F802911BFD22A9
   |texte=   From Liberal Extremity to Safe Mainstream? The Comparative Controversies of Witness Preparation in the United States
}}

Wicri

This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32.
Data generation: Thu Nov 30 15:26:48 2017. Site generation: Tue Mar 8 16:36:20 2022