In courtrooms, witnesses take a solemn oath to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”
At the same time, they’re also instructed to “only answer the question asked.” (In fact, they can be cut off or even censured if they go beyond the specific scope of a question.)
I’m not a lawyer and I understand that this phrasing is centuries old but, when I recently wrote Context Matters, I felt the language to be a little off.
… when somebody asserts X in a certain context A, you might believe X but, when provided more context, you might change your mind. Based on the additional context B, you might
- doubt X, or
- stop believing X, or even
- start believing the opposite of X (aka ~X or X’).
Accordingly, context plays an important role in judging facts.
I felt that the scope of truth is linked to the extent of context covered to find it. In other words, if you ask one question, you’ll learn some facts; whereas, if you ask 10 questions, you might learn many more facts.
When I connected the dots, I felt there was a lacuna: What if the lawyer does not cover a certain context? To comply with the instruction to answer only the question that he’s asked, the witness will not mention the truth associated with that context. Technically, the witness has failed to “tell the whole truth”. But it seems odd to nail the witness for perjury under this situation?
Lawyers assure me that the witness will not be held liable for perjury. That’s because the courtroom procedure implicitly ties the scope of truth to the questions asked and not necessarily to everything known to the witness.
The present text of the oath does not reflect that.
I’m told that’s okay because, the way courtroom procedures work, lawyers shape the questions, the judge controls the flow and it’s the job of the overall process to ensure that all questions required to cover the full context are asked, so, even if the witness does not volunteer anything more than the whole truth in the context of each question, the overall whole truth will come out at the end of the series of questions asked by lawyers of both sides. I also learned that, in exceptional cases, even the judge and members of the jury can ask questions of the witness.
That’s reassuring but I still think that the oath should be modified to make the sworn duty of the witness explicit. Here’s my humble submission for the revised language of the oath:
I swear to tell the truth and the whole truth within the scope of each asked question, and nothing but the truth.
I’m not a lawyer. Just a curious citizen thinking out loud. But I believe language shapes expectations and expectations shape outcomes. Perhaps it’s time to reframe these centuries-old words to better reflect the reality of how courtroom testimony actually works.
What do you think?
Would a change like this make things clearer, or is the current language too sacred – or too functional – to adjust?
Let me know your thoughts in the comments below. Thanks in advance.