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 this theater doesn't always play by the rules. The most painful problem is lying. Witnesses lie, experts lie, lawyers lie. Sometimes, unfortunately, judges lie too. Combating lying in court is not just a technical task, it's a question of the survival of justice. If the court can't distinguish truth from lies, why is it needed at all?

The Main Enemy — False Testimony

Let's start with the most widespread phenomenon. A witness comes to court, puts their hand on their heart, and tells a lie. The motives can be any: fear, friendship, money, revenge. The fight against this begins even before they open their 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. Habitual 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 lets a witness freely recount the story. They ask specific, short questions. They ask for the time, place, distance, lighting, clothing, direction of movement. They compare the answers with those given at the preliminary investigation. The slightest 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. Their conclusion is often seen as the ultimate truth. But what if an expert lies? For example, a forensic expert underestimates the severity of injuries because they were 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 re-examination. The second method is questioning the expert in court. The lawyer asks questions about the research method, the original data. A well-trained 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 together 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 lying, but in essence — deception of the court. The only way to combat this is the principle of adversarial proceedings. One side says "white," the other says "black." And the judge compares, checks 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 Scary Lie: When a Judge Lies

It is not customary to talk about this aloud, but it does happen. A judge may alter the minutes of the session by writing in what the parties did not say. Or ignore obvious evidence of innocence, simply referring to "insufficient persuasiveness." Or write an imaginary mitigating circumstance in the verdict 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 recheck the protocols and audio recordings. If it finds forgery, it will send 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 real punishment reaches only a few. 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 polygraphs. 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 side. The second powerful tool is video recording of interrogations. Since 2020, it has been allowed to record investigative actions in criminal proceedings. If later the witness changes their testimony in court, the judge includes the recording: "Here you said otherwise." The third is the analysis of digital traces. 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 Tips for Lawyers: How to Destroy 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. Don't 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 at the most unexpected moment that the liar has not seen. 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 begin to soften the wording. The fourth is the "silence" method. After a series of questions, be silent and look at the witness. From the tense silence, the liar begins to fill the pause with new details and falls into a trap.

What to Do If You Become 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 shamelessly. What to do? First, don't shout. Shouting in the courtroom is a loss. Second, file written motions. Fix every word of a lie in the protocol. Write: "I request to attach a statement of falsification of evidence to the case." Third, demand a recording of all sessions. 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. Don't be afraid. It is your right. Fifth, after the verdict — immediately to appeal. In the appellate 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 doesn't have time to interrogate each witness for hours. The second is the fear of overturning the verdict. If the judge begins to actively combat lying, he may make a mistake, and the higher court will cancel the decision. It is easier to believe and issue an obviously crooked verdict 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 don't know how to conduct a cross-examination, don't file motions, don't demand expertise. As a result, lying thrives without punishment.

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 lying are being introduced — still experimentally, but progress is being made. Electronic databases of false witnesses are being created. If a person has been caught lying under oath once, their words will be treated with skepticism in the next case. The number of judicial expertises is increasing. Lawyers are learning to work with polygraph and linguistics. The main thing is that the judge's culture is changing. Young judges are not as passive as Soviet elders. They ask questions, check, doubt. Slowly, but truth is reclaiming its 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 unmasked liar, every verified expertise, every recorded video — is a brick in the wall protecting truth. And truth, as we know, is more valuable.

Permanent link to this publication: