Five Components of Witness Credibility

Witness credibility is measured through five categories: expertise, reliability, trustworthiness, objectivity, and dynamism. While other characteristics certainly influence perceptions of credibility, these five factors comprise the basis for believability. In order for a witness to be perceived as fully credible, all five categories must be present.

Expertise measures reliability of the witness’s knowledge of the topic being discussed. Expertise is built through interactions. Primarily, these interactions are between the witness, the audience, and the message delivered. In order to be credible, one must be perceived to be an expert on the subject. While attorneys prize education and credentials for expertise, jurors often value common sense, practical wisdom, and hands-on experience. In short, jurors value completely different types of interactions than most attorneys. Even though high scholastic achievement is impressive, jurors often prefer hands-on, real-world experience with the topic at hand. A witness with a bachelor’s degree in engineering who built a similar structure to the one discussed is often more impressive than a professor with a doctorate who has dealt in purely abstract or theoretical designs. Jurors want experts to have examined, seen, and touched the materials in question. Jurors want witnesses to demonstrate how they have interacted with the topics at issue in the case at hand. This is especially important for expert witnesses (as opposed to eyewitnesses or other fact witnesses).

Reliability measures the impression that a witness has performed consistently, dependably, and responsibly. Jurors value reliable information, and the more consistent the witness can be, the more reliable the information will seem. Inconsistencies, however, only matter when they are significant; that is, jurors will often excuse “normal” inconsistencies resulting from recall errors or misunderstandings. Nit-picking at a witness’s minor inconsistencies, especially on cross-examination, can be seen as annoying to jurors, rather than an example of the witness giving unreliable testimony. This does not mean that small inconsistencies do not matter. Quite the contrary, small differences are a big deal so long as opposing counsel can make the differences significant to the witness’s testimony or recall.

When it comes to reliability, consistency in demeanor can be just as important. Confidence and cooperation with opposing counsel give jurors the impression that the information coming from the witness is more reliable, because the witness has nothing to hide. Additionally, major changes in a witness’s demeanor from direct examination to cross-examination often prove damaging to reliability, showing inconsistency and reducing the credibility of the witness’s testimony.

Trustworthiness in a witness often comes into play when jurors make comparisons between conflicting testimony or points of view. The more trustworthy of two accounts is the most believable and credible. Honesty is a large part of trust, but many complex interactions take place when a person trusts another. Honesty is not a simple concept, either—after all, how many lies make a liar? How many mistakes is a person allowed?

Often, the “common” touch signifies trustworthiness. This means trust is a function of position, not performance, on some level. Presenting oneself as management can lead to distrust from those who have spent their entire lives as workers. Prestige can be a turn-off for those who have never garnered any. While you cannot undo these elements of a witness’s background, it is useful to relate the witness’s actions, testimony, opinions, or experience to what the “average person” (or juror) would have done, thought, or experienced. Nonverbal communication often cements whether a person is accepted as trustworthy—demeanor, expression, mannerisms, and tone all help a juror relate to a witness. These characteristics must be scrutinized before trial and, if necessary, either improved or explained.

Objectivity in the courtroom is rooted in freedom from bias, prejudice, and partisan interest. Objectivity is related not only to a witness’s words and actions, but also to the relationships between the witness and other parties. Parents have an obvious bias toward their children, for example. Attorneys are viewed as advocates for their clients, who will do anything to win a trial. Thus, credibility can be enhanced when behavior is opposite of what would normally be expected from potentially biased witnesses. When someone admits some problems with their employer, or an executive admits corporate wrongdoing, objectivity is more easily attributed. Admitting to bad facts, especially in a controlled environment under direct examination, can help to enhance credibility through objectivity. An expert’s opinion will certainly not be neutral, however; instead, the expert witness must achieve objectivity through neutral methods and valid experience.

Dynamism measures nonverbal attributes, including assertiveness, forcefulness, strength, and activity (versus passivity). Dynamism works best at a moderate level; if a witness is too dynamic, it can be a turn-off for some jurors, making the witness appear to be pushy, aggressive, or over the top. Dynamic speakers avoid hesitant or equivocal language, instead choosing to be forceful and direct. Use of active voice, concrete nouns, and sparing use of adverbs and adjectives lends itself to increased dynamism. The witness should use direct, simple declarative statements to make points, creating a moderate air of dynamic speech and action.