Opinion ID: 604939
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Testimony of an Atheist

Text: 16 Hall moved to strike the testimony of William Earl McDonald, a government witness, arguing that he was incompetent to testify because he swore an oath to God despite the fact that he is an atheist. It is well settled that an oath to God is no longer required in order to testify and that a witness may affirm rather than swear an oath. See 1 U.S.C. § 1 (1985). Fed.R.Evid. 603 requires only that a witness declare that the witness will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken the witness' conscience and impress the witness' mind with the duty to do so. Hall asserts that McDonald swore an oath because that was what was required to be said and therefore the oath did not impress upon McDonald the duty to tell the truth. In response to questions about his religious beliefs, McDonald testified that he took the oath seriously, that he respected the oath, and that to the best of my ability, I'm telling the truth. McDonald was not offered a chance to affirm rather than swear an oath, but the record reflects that he was cognizant of his solemn duty to tell the truth. This comports with the liberal requirements of Rule 603 and the district court correctly denied the motion to strike McDonald's testimony. 17