Often in trials where questions of criminal procedure arise, the resolution of a issue depends on conflicting testimony, a "he-said she-said" scenario. For example, an officer might claim that a defendant gave consent for a search of her hotel room, while the defendant insists that she did not. In situations like this, there are four possibilities:

1. The defendant is lying and the officer is telling the truth.
2. The officer is lying and the defendant is telling the truth.
3. Both of them are lying. For example, the actual situation might have been ambiguous and both are describing it as though it were clearly in their favor.
4. Neither is lying. That is, both have different recollections about the situation.

I would say three things. First, I agree that is that defendants probably lie regularly. Second, if, in a trial, you are telling a story in a way that withholds information that the jury would want to know, then that's the same as lying. But third and most interestingly, I think Officer Parsons is underestimating the weakness of memory. I think that quite frequently the fourth situation crops up. Both the officer and the defendant believe that what they are saying is true because their memory of the event has shifted to a way that favors their case.

After class I saw Kate! She had come by to pick up some papers from the school library and called me. And then on my way to spend $26 on a semester-long motorcycle outdoor parking pass I got a call letting me know I'd gotten into clinic. And then when I got home I found $15! It was in an card that my grandmother had sent me for Easter.
posted by weiss @ 9:51 AM