How does a disciplined employee impact creditable testimony in court?

Agency directors and managers should review their disciplinary practices as it might in fact provide a lack of credible courtroom testimony in cases filed against the department. The role of departmental staff to serve as credible witnesses or experts can be easily compromised by a series of poor administrative acts that demonstrates a fundamentally defect in their own witness’s ability to provide clear and concise testimony in most cases. By the mere virtue of being disciplined, an employee has an impact on the litigation by showing what may be inferred as a particular influence on the juries thus it remains important that the agency is fair and equitable in those cases that might go to court.


In the courtroom demeanor role, one must rely on extraordinary credence or fact finding to provide factual testimony creating a possibility that those who have received discipline can be quiet misleading in their presentation to the judge or jury. Providing assistance on the pertinent facts of a specific case will require the attorneys to inquire both the witnesses’ methodology for stating such a fact(s) or opinion but will rely on some specialized knowledge that makes the opinion or fact admissible to the merits of the case.

Is the witness really qualified & how far-reaching Is the expert's Testimony - Normally, the courts will limit the testimony to three factual areas that include the:

• Technical nature of the facts presented by the witness or expert

• The cause and impact of those facts presented by the witness or expert

• The potential or actual damage of those facts presented by the witness or expert

Hence it is important that such a witness is able to provide such testimony without any prior compromises or mistakes since their testimony must provide the judge or jury reliable and significant outcome of such an event. Relying on one’s training as an expert; one must demonstrate a high rate of competence and dependability on making sound judgments and decisions. The margin of error is zero and will be compromised quickly if exposed.

He or she may have to legitimately explain how their testimony could influence the judge or jury to sway the opinion in their favor. Obviously, employees with disciplinary history are poor witnesses and even less credible for expert testimony. One must demonstrate compliance with all protocols of the job and show no exceptions. Any attempt to discredit or refute a written report and “clearly contradict” that report takes the task of the judge or jury the truthfulness of the witness when presenting their facts. An attorney could in a closing argument demonstrate a lack of credibility and untruthfulness for those who have been disciplined by the agency in the past or prior job performances. Although the disciplinary action or history may not be relevant, it could unduly influence the judge or jury.

Whenever a witness or expert is drawn into the role of providing factual information for the agency, their testimony can be powerful and effective if their credibility levels are intact. He or she will be subject to close scrutiny of prior disciplinary actions or history that reveals errors in decision making, poor judgment, reliability and dependability of having the proper knowledge for the alleged protocol and be able to demonstrate this clearly without opposition or controversy in their stance or point of drawing a conclusion.

The summary of this impact statement is clearly stated that the expertise that may arise from the witness’s knowledge regardless of the subject matter depends on their skill, experience, training, education, and a sound and creditable analysis of their personnel file to reflect no violations or no infractions of any protocol established for the job or role challenged. If any violations or doubt appears from either the immediate past or prior job history, these witness or expert statements will demonstrate that their analysis is unreliable and not likely sufficient in credibility to influence the judge or jury their words are indeed factual and accepted to be truthful.