Reference no: EM132303870

Can Judges Really Assess Credibility? When the only evidence in a case is the testimony of the mosaic. In a 2003 program called "The Challenge of Diver disputing parties, the case becomes a "credibility contest." city," the NJ grappled with this challenge for adjudicators The judge has to assess the credibility of the witnesses and The presentation pointed out that "access to justice will decide whose version seems more reasonable. (Most trials diminished if the adjudicator fails to recognize and deal with are heard by a judge without a jury.) Credibility includes both such issues as cultural difference; language; disability; sys truthfulness and reliability. One person may not have seen or systemic discrimination." heard clearly, may not remember well, or may have observed only part of an event. Even though a witness is honest, his QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER testimony might not be reliable 1. If judges are no better than average at assessing the It is widely accepted in the legal system that the trial truthfulness of witnesses, what are the implications for the interpretation of contracts in which the parties' testimony conflicts and there is no independent evidence? the judge is in the best position to assess the witnesses' credibility. Lawyers and judges seem to believe that years of experience on the bench equip judges to evaluate witnesses' credibility better than most people can. Even appeal courts hesitate to question a trial judge's assessment because the judge had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses and observe their demeanour. However, recent social science research does not support this belief 2. How do you think judges, who, like all of us, have their own inherent (and perhaps unconscious) biases, can better assess testimony in a diverse society like Canada? 3. What steps might a business person take to reduce the, In particular, studies have shown that judges are no likelihood of problems in interpreting contracts?