The judicial process is like a theater. There is a prosecutor, a defense attorney, a judge in a robe, and there are spectators — the jury or the public. But this theater doesn't always play by the rules. The most painful problem is lying. Witnesses lie, experts lie, attorneys lie. Sometimes, unfortunately, judges lie too. Combating lying in court is not just a technical task, it's a matter of the survival of justice. If the court can't distinguish truth from lies, why is it needed at all?

The Main Enemy — False Testimony from Witnesses

Let's start with the most widespread phenomenon. A witness comes to court, puts his hand on his heart, and tells a lie. The motives can be any: fear, friendship, money, revenge. The fight against this begins even before he opens his mouth. The first line of defense is criminal liability under Article 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The judge is required to warn the witness: "For false testimony — up to five years in prison." For many, this is like a cold shower. But not for everyone. Chronic liars know that punishment is rarely imposed and take the risk.

The second line of defense is the interrogation procedure. An experienced judge or attorney never allows a witness to freely retell his story. He asks specific, short questions. He asks for the time, place, distance, lighting, clothing, direction of movement. He compares the answers with those given during the preliminary investigation. Any discrepancy — and the liar begins to be "twisted." The third line of defense is written evidence. If a witness says that "it was dark and no one could be seen," and the footage from the cameras shows bright light, the lie is exposed.

How to Catch a Lying Expert

An expert in court is almost a sacred figure. His conclusion is often accepted as the truth in the last instance. But what if the expert lies? For example, a forensic expert underestimates the severity of injuries because he was paid money. Or a graphologist confirms a signature that was actually forged. Combating such lying is difficult but possible. The first method is a review. The party orders an independent review of the expert's conclusion from another specialist. If the reviewer finds gross errors, the court orders a re-examination. The second method is the cross-examination of the expert in court. The attorney asks questions about the research methodology, the original data. A well-prepared lawyer can quickly identify where the expert deviated from the instructions. The third method is an application for a commission of experts, when three experts work at the same time and control each other.

Prosecutor and Attorney: Whose Lie Is More Dangerous

The parties to the process are not angels either. The prosecutor may exaggerate the guilt, twist facts, use emotional techniques instead of evidence. The attorney — distort the law, present non-existent alibis, appeal to pity. This is not always called lying, but in essence — deception of the court. The only way to combat this is the principle of adversarial proceedings. One side says "white," the other says "black." And the judge compares, checks the documents, and makes a decision. If the judge is passive and does not delve into the matter, lying slips through. If the judge is active — asks questions, demands evidence, orders inspections — lying retreats.

The Most Scary Lie: When a Judge Lies

This is not something that is said aloud, but it does happen. A judge may alter the protocol of the session by writing in what the parties did not say. Or ignore obvious evidence of innocence, simply referring to "insufficient persuasiveness." Or write an non-existent mitigating circumstance in the verdict to justify overly lenient punishment. Combating judicial lying is almost impossible. The attorney can file an appeal, pointing out the distortion of facts. The higher court will recheck the protocols and audio recordings. If it finds forgery, it will send the case for a new hearing and issue a private determination against the judge. Based on this determination, a check from the Disciplinary Chamber of Judges may come. But only a few reach real punishment. Usually, the judge is simply demoted or sent into retirement. There are almost no criminal cases against judges for lying. And this is the main gap in the system.

Techniques Against Lying: Polygraph, Video, Expertise

The good news is that technology is advancing. Today, courts are increasingly ordering psychophysiological examinations with polygraphs. This is not a 100% proof, but a very strong argument. The court may consider the refusal of a witness to take a polygraph in favor of the other side. The second powerful tool is video recording of interrogations. Since 2020, it has been allowed to record investigative actions in criminal proceedings. If later the witness changes his testimony in court, the judge includes the recording: "Here you said something else." The third is the analysis of the digital footprint. Geolocation of the phone, time of messages, receipts from stores — all this kills lying. The fourth is linguistic expertise. Specialists analyze the text of the testimony: are there too many details, are there signs of memorization, does the vocabulary match other witnesses. Lying is usually poorer in details than real memory.

Practical Tips for Attorneys: How to Overthrow Lying

If you are a lawyer and are handling a case where you are lied to, remember several techniques. The first is the "layer cake" method. Do not try to expose the lie with one blow. Ask questions in pieces: light, sound, smells, time, movement. The liar will get confused in the details. The second method is "unexpected document." Present a printout that the liar has never seen at the most unexpected moment. For example, a recording from a camera where it can be seen that he was not there at the specified time. The third method is "open door." Ask: "Are you sure of your testimony under the threat of Article 307?" Often this is enough to make the liar pale and start softening his formulations. The fourth method is "silence." After a series of questions, be silent and look at the witness. From the tense silence, the liar begins to fill the pause with new details and falls.

What to Do If You Become a Victim of Lying in Court

You are an ordinary person. You brought checks, photos, witnesses to court. And the judge does not look at them, and the party lies shamelessly. What to do? First, do not scream. Screaming in the courtroom is a loss. Second, file written motions. Fix every word of lying in the protocol. Write: "I request to attach a statement of falsification of evidence to the case." Third, demand an audio recording of all sessions. Now it is mandatory in most courts. Fourth, if the judge clearly does not want to notice the lying, write a complaint to the chairperson of the court and the Disciplinary Chamber. Do not be afraid. This is your right. Fifth, after the verdict — immediately to appeal. In the appeals court, they often pay more attention to the facts.

Why the Fight Is Not Always Successful: Pain Points

Let's be honest: the system fights against judicial lying poorly. There are several reasons for this. The first is the overload of judges. A judge has up to a hundred cases a month. He does not have time to interrogate each witness for hours. The second is the fear of the reversal of the verdict. If the judge starts actively fighting against lying, he may make a mistake, and the higher court will cancel the decision. It is easier to believe and issue an obviously crooked verdict than to risk a career. The third is the reluctance of prosecutors to initiate proceedings under Article 307. They seem to them like trifles. The fourth is the low qualifications of many attorneys. They do not know how to conduct a cross-examination, do not file motions, do not demand expertise. As a result, lying thrives without punishment.

What Will Change in the Next Few Years

Optimism is inspired by digitalization. Full video recording of court sessions is becoming the norm. Voice recognition systems for detecting lying are being introduced — still experimentally, but there is progress. Electronic databases of false witnesses are being created. If a person lies under oath once, his words will be treated skeptically in the next case. The number of judicial expertises is increasing. Lawyers are learning to work with polygraphs and linguistics. The main thing is that the culture of judges is changing. Young judges are not as passive as the Soviet elders. They ask questions, check, doubt. Slowly but surely, truth is winning space.

Combating lying in court is not about catching and punishing someone. It's about keeping justice just. A court that believes every lie is a farce. A court that knows how to separate the wheat from the chaff is the foundation of society. Every exposed liar, every verified expertise, every recorded video — is a brick in the wall protecting truth. And truth, as we know, is more valuable.

Permanent link to this publication: