A very special thanks to Galveston County criminal defense attorney Gerald Burks and Houston criminal defense attorney Mark Bennett for their research into the so-called "One Witness Rule."
Everytime I sit and hear it I cringe because that is NOT the law. The so-called "One Witness Rule" is a bastardization of Article 38.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure that deals with uncorroborated testimony of a victim of sexual abuse. That particular provision deals with the sufficiency of the evidence in a sexual assault case. There is no mention in the code of any other type of case in which this so-called rule applies. This is a procedural rule that allows the court to determine whether such uncorroborated testimony is sufficient to uphold a conviction. Such an inquiry is made by the court, not the jury.
Furthermore, this so-called rule is an attempt by the prosecutor to shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial. By telling the panelists that they must convict if they believe the word of the state's one witness, the prosecutor misstates her burden of proof. In a criminal case it's not a question of whether the jury believes one witness or not, it's a question of whether or not the state has met its burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. A jury may very well believe the testimony of one witness, but whether that testimony proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the citizen accused did the deed may another story altogether.
Questioning the panel about the state's so-called "One Witness Rule" is improper voir dire and should raise an immediate objection. (Better yet, address it in a motion in limine as well.) Should the court grant any challenge for cause by the state over a panelist's refusal to follow the so-called rule, make an immediate objection. Should the court overrule the objection, object to the panel as seated.
- Read what Mark Bennett has to say about the so-called "One Witness Rule" in his blog Defending People.
No comments:
Post a Comment