I will first say that the conclusion only represents personal opinion, and in civil disputes, the validity of witness testimony is about equal to nothing. The lawsuit can be won not because there is witness testimony, the lawsuit is lost, and often it is not the witness testimony that can be remedied.
This may go against the intuition of most ordinary people.
To prove my own point, I have carefully read the section on witness testimony in the rules of attestation, listing the validity of the following types of witness testimony.
I. A person who fails to express his intention correctly cannot act as a witness (rule 67 of the Rules of Evidence)
Paragraph 2 of this article also stipulates that persons without capacity for civil conduct and persons with limited capacity for civil conduct whose facts to be proved are appropriate to their age, intellectual status or mental health status may be used as witnesses.
Invalidity: ☆☆
Probability of occurrence: ☆
Lawyer App: ☆
II. Testimony given in writing or otherwise by a witness who does not appear in court without a justifiable reason shall not be used as a basis for determining the facts of a case (Article 68 of the Rules of Evidence)
It is easier to understand than the original rules of evidence: the testimony of witnesses who do not appear in court to testify without a legitimate reason cannot be used alone as a basis for determining the facts of the case (article 69 of the original evidence provisions).
Degree of invalidity: ☆☆☆
Probability of occurrence: ☆☆☆
Lawyer App: ☆☆☆☆
III. Failure to submit an application to the people's court before the expiration of the time limit for presenting evidence (Article 69 of the Rules of Evidence)
The application shall indicate the witness's name, occupation, domicile, and contact information, the main content of the testimony, the relevance of the content of the testimony to the facts to be testified, and the necessity for the witness to appear in court to testify.
This is actually a surprise attack on evidence, and the other party has the right to refuse to cross-examine the evidence. In reality, judges are generally more tolerant of the provisional submission of documentary evidence and have no good temper toward witness testimony.
Invalidity: ☆
4. Witnesses shall objectively state the facts they personally perceive, and shall not use speculative, inferential or critical language when testifying (Rule 72 of the Rules of Evidence)
In fact, this can be subdivided into two articles, one is the source of evidence, the testimony provided by the witness cannot be transmitted evidence, that is, "heard", and the witness testimony cannot be an evaluation of the facts, but should be the facts themselves. This is a very important cross-examination technique for witness testimony.
5. No observers shall be allowed to sit in court proceedings, and testimony shall not be made by means of reading out written materials prepared in advance (Rule 72 of the Rules of Evidence)
I guess there must have been similar "accidents" in the past: ordinary people are not familiar with the rules of evidence, even if the law has provisions, the court often has relevant prompts in the rules of evidence provided to the plaintiff and the defendant in advance, but if the judge forgets to remind on the day of the trial, a similar situation may still occur. It is okay if the party who cannot testify wins the lawsuit, but the judge who loses is afraid of being complained about.
6. The testimony of a witness with an interest in a party or its representative cannot be used alone as a basis for determining the facts of the case (Rule of Evidence 90)
I have been in the industry for nearly six years, and I have seen many witnesses, but I have never seen any witnesses apply for the cost of appearing in court, which only exists in the legal provisions (rule 75 of the Rules of Evidence). At the same time, ordinary people often think that more is better than less, the active testimony can not be said to be none but must be very rare, the witness side is often based on the friendly relationship with one of the parties to testify in court, the interest is an unavoidable issue.
To cite a few common examples: other employees of the company appear in court to testify that the dismissed employee has committed serious violations of the company's rules and regulations; the child testifies for one parent to prove that the other party has domestic violence. These are typical stakes and have no probative force.
In reality, there are still such situations: witnesses who, according to general life experience, have a high probability of testifying in favor of one party and have made testimony in favor of the other party. Although there is no explicit provision in the law, I believe that the probative force should be appropriately increased on the basis of considering the motive for testifying, but it is still impossible to use it alone as conclusive evidence.
Recommendations
Due to the lack of awareness and skills to save evidence in a timely and effective manner, ordinary people are prone to rely too much on witness testimony when they want to fight a lawsuit, and this article will give you a wake-up call. The above analysis also shows the embarrassing position of the validity of witness testimony in civil litigation, and if witness testimony has to be used, a few suggestions are as follows:
1. Witness testimony is the only evidence, dead horses should be live horse doctors, and it is recommended to find another opportunity to collect evidence;
2. Where there are minor flaws in documentary evidence, appropriate supplementary witness testimony;
3. Where the facts to be proved are complex, witnesses shall be trained in advance;
4. If the facts to be proved are complex and the witness is not very competent for the obligation to prove, it may become a breakthrough for the other party.