The judicial process is like a theater. There is a prosecutor, a defender, a judge in a robe. And there are spectators — the jury or just the public. But in this theater, they don't always play by the rules. The most painful problem is lying. Witnesses, experts, and lawyers lie. Sometimes, unfortunately, even judges do. Combating lying in court is not just a technical task, it's a question of the survival of justice. If the court cannot distinguish truth from lies, why is it needed at all?

The main enemy — false testimony by witnesses

Let's start with the most widespread phenomenon. A witness comes to court, lays a hand on his heart, and tells a lie. 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 procedure for questioning. An experienced judge or lawyer never allows a witness to freely retell the 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 at 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 an expert liar

An expert in court is almost a sacred figure. His conclusion is often considered 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 for it. Or a graphologist confirms a signature that was actually forged. Combating such lies 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 repeat examination. The second method is the questioning of the expert in court. The lawyer asks questions about the research method, the original data. A knowledgeable lawyer quickly identifies 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 lawyer: whose lie is more dangerous

The parties to the process are not angels either. The prosecutor may exaggerate the guilt, twist facts, use emotional tricks instead of evidence. The lawyer — distort the law, present non-existent alibis, appeal to pity. This is not always called a lie, but in essence — deception of the court. The only way to combat this is the principle of adversarial proceedings. One party 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 details, lies slip through. If the judge is active — asks questions, demands evidence, orders inspections — lies recede.

The most terrifying lie: when a judge lies

It is not customary to talk about this aloud, but it does happen. A judge may alter the protocol of the hearing by writing in what the parties did not say. Or ignore an obvious proof of innocence, simply referring to "the lack of persuasiveness." Or write an imaginary mitigating circumstance in the sentence to justify too lenient punishment. Combating judicial lying is almost impossible. The lawyer can file an appeal, pointing out the distortion of facts. The higher court will re-examine the protocols and audio recordings. If it finds fraud, it will refer the case for a new hearing and issue a private determination against the judge. On this determination, a check from the Disciplinary Collegium 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 appointing psychophysiological examinations with a polygraph. 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 party. The second powerful tool is the 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 plays the recording: "Here you said otherwise." The third is the analysis of the digital trail. 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 many unnecessary details, are there signs of memorization, does the vocabulary match other witnesses. Lying is usually poorer in details than real memory.

Practical advice for lawyers: how to dismantle lying

If you are a lawyer and are handling a case where you are lied to, remember a few tricks. 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 is the "unexpected document" method. Present a printout that the liar has never seen at the most unexpected moment. For example, a recording from a camera where it is clear that he was not there at the specified time. The third is the "open door" method. 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 is the "silence" method. After a series of questions, be silent and look at the witness. The liar begins to fill the pause with new details and falls into a trap.

What to do if an ordinary person becomes 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 without mercy. What to do? First, do not scream. Screaming in the courtroom is a defeat. Second, file written motions. Fix every word of a lie in the protocol. Write: "I request to attach the statement of falsification of evidence to the case." Third, demand the audio recording of all hearings. Now it is mandatory in most courts. Fourth, if the judge obviously does not want to notice the lying, write a complaint to the chairperson of the court and the Disciplinary Collegium. Do not be afraid. It is your right. Fifth, after the sentence — immediately to appeal. In the appeal court, they often pay more attention to the facts.

Why the fight is not always successful: pain points

Let's be honest: the system is bad at combating judicial lying. 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 reversing the sentence. If the judge begins to actively combat lying, he may make a mistake, and the higher court will reverse the decision. It is easier to believe and issue an obviously crooked sentence than to risk a career. The third is the reluctance of prosecutors to initiate cases under Article 307. They seem trivial to them. The fourth is the low qualification of many lawyers. They do not know how to conduct a cross-examination, do not file motions, do not require expertise. As a result, lying thrives unpunished.

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 lies are being introduced — they are still experimental, but progress is being made. Electronic databases of false witnesses are being created. If a person is found guilty of lying under oath once, his words will be treated with skepticism in the next case. The number of judicial expertise is increasing. Lawyers are learning to work with polygraph and linguistics. The main thing is that the judicial culture is changing. Young judges are not as passive as Soviet elders. They ask questions, check, doubt. Slowly, but the truth is winning space.

The fight against 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 pillar of society. Every exposed liar, every verified expert, every recorded video — is a brick in the wall protecting the truth. And truth, as we know, is more valuable.

Permanent link to this publication: