court trial rules-of-evidence
Can a lawyer compel a witness to read something aloud in court?
<p>Often on shows like Law and Order, a lawyer might ask someone on the stand to read something aloud. An example might be an academic putting forward one opinion, being asked to read an excerpt from a journal article they authored 20 years prior that contradicts what they are currently saying (this happened in one episode).</p>

<p>Could the person on the stand refuse? Surely the lawyer can read it themselves or show the text on a projector to the court, and having the person read the text out loud might influence the jury and affect the outcome in a negative way for the person on trial.</p>

<p>Is this just TV drama, or is there a legal basis?</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Could the person on the stand refuse?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Yes. The witness may refuse to read it aloud, which does not mean he cannot be compelled to do so. The witness may object on grounds you mention (prejudice) only if he is the defendant. Either way, the judge will make a decision on how that evidence is to be presented to the jury.</p>

<p>Regardless of who reads the evidence, the witness may be ordered to answer the question of whether or not he authored that document. Defying that order could result in <em>contempt of court</em> or, depending on the context, the entry of an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_inference" rel="nofollow noreferrer">adverse inference</a>.</p>

<p>Because you used the Law &amp; Order example, I'll assume you're talking about a criminal case in the United States.</p>

<p>No, the witness may not refuse to answer, because yes, there is a legal basis for requiring a person to read something out loud. The point of a subpoena is that it legally compels you to appear and testify, and to testify fully and truthfully about whatever you are asked. More specifically, a criminal defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to force witnesses to appear and testify.</p>

<p>On a more practical note, it is not really the case that a lawyer could simply read the article into evidence. If he has the witness on direct examination, asking the question as "Doesn't your article say that <em>x</em>?" would be a leading question, in violation of <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_611" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Rule 611</a>, and even on a cross-examination, when leading is allowed, an attorney's question about what the article says is still just a question, not evidence. The jury should not, from his question, draw a conclusion that he is correct about the contents of the article.</p>

<p>Moreover, there are certain instances where statements may be read to the jury but are explicitly prohibited from being submitted to the jury as an exhibit (<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Rule 803(18)</a>), which really requires you to ask the witness to read it out loud.</p>

<p>An image projected on a wall isn't in the record. You need someone to read the words out loud so the stenographer can take them down. The person reading can't be the attorney or bailiff because they aren't under oath, meaning what they say isn't evidence, and the jury can't treat it as evidence. If you want the jury to consider it, you need the witness's testimony.</p>
