NEW: Giving Evidence in Court: Why Accuracy Beats Confidence

The Psychology of Giving Evidence in Court

Why the Oath Matters More Than You Think

Most people see the oath or affirmation as a formality. In reality, it sets the tone for everything that follows.

• Oath (religious): “I swear by Almighty God that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

• Affirmation (non-religious): “I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

Once those words are spoken, you’ve made a promise in front of the judge. Psychologically, it locks you in.

People tend to speak differently after swearing. They’re more cautious, more consistent. Judges know this, and they pay attention to the answers you now give.

"The real danger is overconfidence.

Overly confident witnesses sometimes try

to “help” the case by speculating, editorialising,

or giving opinions they weren’t asked for.

That almost always backfires under cross-examination.

Plus you end up coming across as cocky or even arrogant"

Direct Examination Is About Storytelling

When your own lawyer starts asking questions, it isn’t just about collecting facts. They’re guiding the judge through a narrative.

The danger is when witnesses break that flow.

Rambling, jumping back and forth, or adding details that weren’t asked can break the flow of the story.

Judges, like any audience, prefer clarity and structure. That’s why short, direct answers matter. It isn’t about being polite. It’s about keeping your version of events clear and concise.

Accuracy vs. Perception

How is evidence given in court?

You might think the judge only cares if you’re right or wrong.

In truth, they’re also judging how you come across.

Take this example:

• Strong answer: “I read the email at 10am and replied at 10.15.”

• Weak answer: “I think I read it that morning, maybe later. I can’t remember.”

The second answer doesn’t just sound vague. It plants doubt. And that doubt can seep into how the judge hears all of your evidence.

Credibility is key.

One poor or uncertain reply can lessen the weight of everything else you say.

The Judge Is Your Real Audience

It’s natural to look at the lawyer asking the question.

But the judge is the person you need to convince.

Remember: in the District Court, there’s no jury. Just a judge sitting alone.

In higher courts, it might be a judge and jury together. Either way, the decision-makers are your true audience.

Like any audience, they respond better to clarity, calmness and discipline than to overcomplication.

"In fact highly educated or wealthy individuals

can sometimes be quite poor witnesses.

This is because their elevated social status leads

them to believe that they are naturally cleverer

than others and therefore right"

The Surprising Risk: Overconfidence

People worry about nerves. That's natural. Judges know witnesses get nervous.

The real danger is overconfidence.

Overly confident witnesses sometimes try to “help” the case by speculating, editorialising, or giving opinions they weren’t asked for.

That almost always backfires under cross-examination.

Plus you end up coming across as cocky or even arrogant.

The safest witness isn’t the slickest. It’s the disciplined one. Nervous but disciplined is far stronger than confident and careless.

The Takeaway

Giving evidence isn’t just about repeating facts. It’s about how you come across when doing it.

The oath sets your frame of mind. Your answers build or weaken the narrative.

And the judge — the real audience — is watching every word.

In court, the difference between a strong witness and a weak one often comes down to one thing: accuracy beats confidence.

Who Is The ‘Best’ Witness?

Surprisingly this isn’t necessarily the police officer or most educated or well-dressed person in the courtroom.

Everyone makes mistakes and errors in recollection happen to us all.

The ‘best’ witness is the one with the best recollection of events. This has nothing to do with your status in life, your income or job.

In fact highly educated or wealthy individuals can sometimes be quite poor witnesses.

This is because their elevated social status leads them to believe that they are naturally cleverer than others and therefore right.

Additionally, the people who work with them often treat them with outsized deference, which only adds to their feeling of superiority.

But this self-delusion has nothing to do with accuracy or credibility and can lead to disaster in court.

This is because courts place a heavy reliance on credible witness testimony, and this has nothing to do with your income or status in society.

"The 'best performing' witness does not equate

to the most accurate or credible.

Some people are highly skilled at public speaking

and in the witness box can seem cool and assured.

But just because someone is calm and composed,

does not mean that they are de facto accurate"

So, who is the best witness?

Judges need to rely on accuracy and honesty, and not necessarily how 'well' someone 'performs' in the witness box.

The 'best performing' witness does not equate to the most accurate or credible.

Some people are highly skilled at public speaking and in the witness box can seem cool and assured.

But just because someone is calm and composed, does not mean that they are de facto accurate.

The opposite is also true: just because a witness is not university educated or speaks in a faltering tone in court, does not mean that their evidence has any less weight than a college professor's.