The Third Protocol

Everyone is familiar with the oath administered to witnesses in court. The witness raises his hand and listens to the clerk recite something like “do you swear that the testimony you are to give in this matter shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?” In California, this is all codified in Civil Code section 2094. It contains two… protocols: the first contains “so help you God?” at the end and the second does not. Because I have nothing better to do, I’ve discovered that the statute also provides for an alternative to these first two protocols. This is what it says exactly:

In the alternative to the forms prescribed in subdivision (a), the court may administer an oath, affirmation, or declaration in an action or a proceeding in a manner that is calculated to awaken the person’s conscience and impress the person’s mind with the duty to tell the truth. The court shall satisfy itself that the person testifying understands that his or her testimony is being given under penalty of perjury.

So can I move in limine to administer my own oaths to the witnesses? Bespoke oaths? I believe I could. Davis’ oath? We can refer to it formally as the Third Protocol. Or Protocol 3. Directive #3? Not really a directive. I feel like the word directive has a bad connotation. Here’s why. During the Bosnian War the Srebrenica genocide was kicked off following the issuance of something called Directive 7. We’ll scrap directive. BTW the fellow who drafted Directive 7 was later prosecuted at the ICC. Read the indictment here.

What would my oath involve? I’d ask the court to order the testifying witness’ grandmother [or other beloved family member] into court and have THAT person administer an oath. Something like “do you swear on my life?” We’d also need to make sure the witness kept their hands where we can see them to ensure their fingers aren’t crossed.

I’m a serious lawyer.