Opinion ID: 2626256
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The prosecution's question was improper.

Text: We hold that the prosecution may not ask a defendant to comment on another witness's veracity. Such questions, referred to as were-they-lying questions, are improper for the following reasons: (1) they invade the province of the jury, as determinations of credibility are for the jury; (2) they are argumentative and have no probative value; (3) they create a risk that the jury may conclude that, in order to acquit the defendant, it must find that a contradictory witness has lied; (4) they are inherently unfair, as it is possible that neither the defendant nor the contradictory witness has deliberately misrepresented the truth; and (5) they create a no-win situation for the defendant: if the defendant states that a contradictory witness is not lying, the inference is that the defendant is lying, whereas if the defendant states that the witness is lying, the defendant risks alienating the jury (particularly if the contradictory witness is a law enforcement officer). See, e.g., United States v. Boyd, 54 F.3d 868, 871 (D.C.Cir.1995) (Determinations of credibility are for the jury, not for witnesses. It is therefore error for a prosecutor to induce a witness to testify that another witness, and in particular a government agent, has lied on the stand. (Citations and internal quotation signals omitted.)); State v. Singh, 259 Conn. 693, 793 A.2d 226, 236-37 (2002) (holding that were-they-lying questions are improper because they invade the province of the jury, have no probative value, are argumentative, and create the risk that the jury may conclude that, in order to acquit the defendant, it must find that the witness has lied); State v. Graves, 668 N.W.2d 860, 872-73 (Iowa 2003) (holding that were-they-lying questions are improper because they put the defendant in a no-win situation and because [i]t is unjust to make the defendant give an opinion as to who is lying when, in fact, it is possible that neither witness has deliberately misrepresented the truth); State v. Emmett, 839 P.2d 781, 787 (Utah 1992) (The question ... is argumentative and seeks information beyond the witness's competence.... [I]t suggests to the jury that a witness is committing perjury even though there are other explanations for the inconsistency. In addition, it puts the defendant in the untenable position of commenting on the character and motivations of another witness who may appear sympathetic to the jury. (Footnote omitted.)). In the instant case, the prosecution did not directly ask Maluia whether Kepa and Ahakuelo were lying; instead, the prosecution asked: Do you know whether [Kepa and Ahakuelo] would have any reason to make up a story against you ... that you can think of? While the question directly asked whether Maluia knew of any motivation for the prosecution's witnesses to lie, the practical effect was that Maluia was asked to comment on the veracity of the prosecution's witnesses. Therefore, the prosecution's question was improper and the circuit court erred in requiring Maluia to answer the question. [5]