trial witnesses
Is it possible for a witness to backtrack and claim that their previous statements were wrong because they misremembered?
<p>One of the Youtube channels I'm following is running a series of videos about an ongoing lawsuit (within reason, of course). The <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9umbsmrFk08" rel="noreferrer">latest video</a> has an interesting point that got me wondering.</p>
<p>Suppose the lawsuit is about events that took place about a long time ago (in the case above it's in 1999, that's over 23 years now). The lawyers of one side are questioning a witness from the other side. The questions are carefully crafted, but in the end they manage to get a statement of the witness that they are sure of some fact X. They even ask them several times, just to be sure.</p>
<p>Then the questioning lawyer produces a photo that clearly shows fact X to be wrong.</p>
<p>Is the witness now allowed to say something along the lines: &quot;Huh. That's odd. I clearly remember it differently. But it's such a small detail and it was so long ago...&quot;? Or is it now considered a deliberate lie?</p>
<p>As for jurisdiction: the above case is in the USA, but since I'm myself from Latvia, I'm interested in generic answers for various jurisdictions (or maybe it's the same everywhere?)</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Is it possible for a witness to backtrack and claim that their previous statements were wrong because they misremembered? ... Is the witness now allowed to say something along the lines: &quot;Huh. That's odd. I clearly remember it differently. But it's such a small detail and it was so long ago...&quot;?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Or is it now considered a deliberate lie?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>A judge's assessment of a witness's credibility and reliability is much more nuanced. See <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/a/85119/46948">&quot;How is a judge to evaluate a witness's credibility?&quot;</a></p>

<p>Witnesses are allowed to change or correct their testimony, especially for events that happened long ago. Memories are fallible and details fade over time.</p>
<p>As long as the change seems genuine and in good faith, not deliberately false, courts understand witnesses can make honest mistakes. The key is whether the revised testimony seems credible. The court considers:</p>
<ul>
<li>How long ago the events occurred</li>
<li>What prompted the change</li>
<li>Was it an objective fact like a photo that showed the witness's initial memory was wrong?</li>
</ul>
<p>If so, a genuine correction is not viewed as perjury. The witness likely just misremembered details due to the passage of time. Deliberate lies to mislead the court are viewed differently. But honest mistakes and corrections based on new information are typically allowed.</p>

<p>A trier of fact can make determinations about the credibility of a witness for pretty much any reason that they want. They can decide a witness is lying because they contradicted their previous testimony, or because they aren't making eye contact, or they're making too much eye contact, etc.</p>
