RoR: Forum

Rand on subpoenas from her 1980 radio interview on The Raymond Newman Journal, quoted in Objectively Speaking, p 249:

Newman: Article Six of the Bill of Rights gives individuals the right to subpoena witnesses to testify in their favor. People who don't respond to subpoenas are subject to contempt citations, fines and imprisonment. Does this deny the freedom of the witness if he chooses not to testify?

AR: Not really. I am in favor of such laws because, presumably, if there is a court case, somebody has been hurt. And if a witness has knowledge relevant to the issue and he refuses to testify, he is the one who is violating the rights of the defendant, or whomever his testimony involves. If either party in the case needs the information he has, he couldn't have an honest reason for refusing to provide it, because he is interfering with justice. He is saying, in effect, "The court may decide wrongly without me, but I still don't want to testify." I don't think that's legitimate.

Post 1

Thursday, January 14, 2010 - 12:28pm

Many of you who have been in RoR, and have known BB and Peikoff and others, have more knowledge at your fingertips that I do. I'm just hearing of some of these books and tapes for the first time. So if this is what Rand had to say on the subject of a man's right NOT to be free of laws that "compell" him, why have we been arguing?

And if a witness has knowledge relevant to the issue and he refuses to testify, he is the one who is violating the rights of the defendant

So that thought leads me back to asking: If someone who simply has "knowledge" can violate the rights of a defendent, can someone who has more than "knowledge", lets say perhaps proximity to a victim about whom he will have to testify later, be lawfully and morally forced to assist the person he will later have to testify for--provided it doesn't put him in harms way to help?

(Edited by Curtis Edward Clark on 1/14, 12:34pm)

(Edited by Curtis Edward Clark on 1/14, 12:38pm)

Post 2

Thursday, January 14, 2010 - 3:33pm

CEC asked:

Many of you who have been in RoR, and have known BB and Peikoff and others, have more knowledge at your fingertips that I do. I'm just hearing of some of these books and tapes for the first time. So if this is what Rand had to say on the subject of a man's right NOT to be free of laws that "compell" him, why have we been arguing?

Not every pronouncement of Ayn Rand necessarily constitutes Objectivism. So I have read in the past at the Ayn Rand Institute Web site though I cannot immediately locate that passage. To offer another example, Ayn Rand declared homosexuality "immoral" and "disgusting" yet that declaration is not treated as part of Objectivism. Nor is her declaration that a woman would make an unfit U.S. president part of it. So I would not want to accept a quote as a valid principle based solely on the source.

Ayn Rand did declare that whatever errors might be in Objectivism include a corrective factor, namely reality, though I cannot immediately locate that quote either.

So I think people quite correctly challenge assertions that may not jibe with natural law in spite of what Ayn Rand may have said during an interview.

Post 3

Thursday, January 14, 2010 - 4:38pm

Subpoenas are only really successful at obtaining physical evidence, not so much testimony. A witness can just say "well I forgot what happened" and that's the end of it.

Post 4

Friday, January 15, 2010 - 1:33pm

Thank you Luke, for that enlightening answer. As a gay man, I've had to use that "corrective factor" myself.

Post 5

Monday, March 8, 2010 - 1:48pm

Of course witnesses can try not to be helpful, but this is not a new development and competent counsel and judges have ways of dealing with such situations.

A reluctant witness who says that he does not remember the salient facts about which he has been subpoenaed to testify is subject to perjury charges if he lies and contempt if he refuses to answer. A competent questioner can ask a "forgetful" witness not what he remembers did happen, but what he remembers did not happen. Asking a witness to confirm his client's alibi, the defense counsel can ask a hostile witness a question such as, "Do you remember that my client, the defendant, was not in your office at the time the crime was being committed on the other side of town?" If he answers no, then reasonable doubt is created by his suspicious and selective loss of memory, and the fact that he cannot deny the alibi. If he answers yes, then he can be questioned as to what he does remember happening at that time, opening the door to perjury charges if he lies. His testimony is impeachable, and, while not ideal for the defense, will still serve the defense's purpose.

Post 6

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 - 7:22pm