legal-terms evidence witnesses
What does &quot;credible&quot; mean?
<p>Looking at the recently delivered findings and conclusions in Brandt <em>et al.</em> v. Rutledge <em>et al.</em>, full text <a href="https://wp.api.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/win-in-arkansas.pdf" rel="noreferrer">here</a>. On pp. 56-57 of the PDF, one of the expert witnesses is discussed (emphasis added):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Dr. Levine was the State’s only expert witness who has experience
treating patients with gender dysphoria. In his practice, he has
enabled minor patients with gender dysphoria to access hormone therapy
on a case-by-case basis. (Tr. 785:3-6, ECF No. 246 (Levine)).</p>
<p>Dr. Levine does not support banning gender-affirming medical care for
adolescents with gender dysphoria. He has concerns about Act 626’s
impact on youth who are currently receiving gender-affirming hormones.</p>
<p>Dr. Levine testified that doctors who provide gender-affirming medical
care to adolescents with gender dysphoria encourage patients to
identify as transgender and provide hormones immediately without
assessing patients and addressing other mental health conditions or
informing patients and their parents of the risks and the limitations
of the evidence regarding treatments. Id. at 809:18- 810:4;
811:21-812:10; 824:5-14 (Levine). <strong>He offered no evidence that
treatment was being provided this way in Arkansas or anywhere in the
United States. Dr. Levine conceded he has no knowledge of how most
gender clinics provide care and, thus, does not know how common it is
for care to be provided in the way he described. Id. at 887:19-888:25
(Levine). He further does not know how care is provided by doctors in
Arkansas. Id. at 888:24-891:16 (Levine).</strong></p>
<p><strong>The Court found Dr. Levine a very credible witness</strong> who struggles with
the conflict between his scientific understanding for the need for
transgender care and his faith.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>From p. 60:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The legislative findings in Act 626 assert that there is insufficient
evidence of the efficacy of gender-affirming medical care for minors.
<strong>Some of the state’s expert witnesses—Dr. Levine and Dr. Hruz—offered
opinions to that effect. (Tr. 833:12-16, ECF No. 246 (Levine); Tr.
1274:15-25, ECF No. 249 (Hruz)). The Court does not credit these
opinions</strong> because it finds that the evidence showed that decades of
clinical experience in addition to a body of scientific research
demonstrate the effectiveness of these treatments.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>p. 71:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The State argues that minors with gender dysphoria will desist with
age. They contend that there is a significant risk of harm to a minor
who elects to undergo gender hormone therapy or surgery because they
will eventually identify with their sex assigned at birth and regret
the treatment they sought as a minor. The State offered the testimony
of Dr. Levine to support this argument. <strong>The Court found Dr. Levine’s
testimony to be inconsistent and unreliable in this area.</strong> To the
contrary, the evidence proved that there is broad consensus in the
field that once adolescents reach the early stages of puberty and
experience gender dysphoria, it is very unlikely they will
subsequently identify as cisgender or desist. (Tr. 310:13-25, ECF No.
220 (Turban)).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In this context, what does it mean to describe a witness as &quot;very credible&quot;, and yet not to credit their evidence? The court clearly had significant doubts about the accuracy of his testimony, the findings note his lack of knowledge on key points, and that his testimony was in some areas &quot;inconsistent and unreliable&quot;. How do those reconcile?</p>
<p>Does &quot;credible&quot; here mean &quot;comes with good credentials&quot; (e.g. his experience treating trans children) rather than &quot;gave evidence that should be credited&quot;? Or is there some other nuance here?</p>
<p>(I'm not looking for discussion on the merits of the case, only on how this description of a witness reconciles with the assessment of his evidence.)</p>

<p>Credible means &quot;not lying&quot;.</p>
<p>But someone who is telling the truth to the best of their ability may still lack the knowledge to be a strong witness on the matters that the court has to make a decision upon.</p>
<p>For example, if a witness testifies that there was a fight involving a large man and a woman, but is legally blind and didn't get a good view of the people involved, the witness's testimony can be credible, while still not proving the case that a particular person was the large man in question.</p>
<p>&quot;Credited&quot; means that the evidence provided by someone provided an important factual basis upon which to resolve a disputed issue of fact.</p>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/canada" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="tag-canada-tooltip-container">canada</a></p>
<p>There is a distinction between credibility and reliability. Credibility is about sincerity. Reliability is about ultimate accuracy, which can be doubted for reasons other than sincerity (memory, perception, narration, etc.)</p>
<p><a href="https://canlii.ca/t/225zl" rel="noreferrer"><em>R. v. H.C.</em>, 2009 ONCA 56</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Credibility and reliability are different. Credibility has to do with a witness’s veracity, reliability with the accuracy of the witness’s testimony. Accuracy engages consideration of the witness’s ability to accurately</p>
<p>i. observe;</p>
<p>ii. recall; and</p>
<p>iii. recount</p>
<p>events in issue. Any witness whose evidence on an issue is not credible cannot give reliable evidence on the same point. Credibility, on the other hand, is not a proxy for reliability: a credible witness may give unreliable evidence ...</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Credibility of a witness has aspects such as appearance of honesty, appearance of forthrightness, reliability of senses and memory (a distinct concept from the overall reliability of the testimony), impartiality/objectivity regarding the issue at hand, consistency, clarity, professional or other reputation (including experience, knowledge, training), and, above all, direct and comprehensive <em>witnessing</em> of the events or facts that they are reporting on.</p>
<p>Even the most credible testimony on any matter has only a limited probatory value.  It may be the best evidence available in a case, or it may not be.</p>
<p>This question shows an example where one of the sides of a dispute produced a very credible witness, trying to prove a negative claim through their testimony, and the other side presumably offered some evidence to the contrary (to the corresponding positive claim).  It is generally difficult to prove a negative - even if you summon a diverse group of expert witnesses with stellar credentials, it might happen that the other side will be able to prove the corresponding positive claim with at least the same level of persuasiveness.</p>
<p>Finally, if a testimony is characterized as &quot;inconsistent&quot; (i.e., some part of what the witness said is contradicting something else that they also said in the courtroom), its overall credibility/persuasiveness may be high, but not stellar.</p>
