openmic.social is an uncensored community. You may encounter strong language, controversial opinions, and mature or NSFW material. You must be 18+ to browse. Illegal content is prohibited and removed on sight — please report it. By continuing, you accept that you may see content you personally disagree with.
They are advocating/representing, not testifying. A defense attorney does not make statements of fact, they call witnesses and experts for that. They introduce reasonable doubt.
They call witnesses and experts to present facts and other testomony which is why they are under oath.
Fair enough, but I don’t like it. I guess I’ll settle for contempt of court.
They are still able to be held accoubtable for breaking ethincs, and in my opinion they should be disbarred for presenting AI hallucinations and any other evidence they haven’t spent any time verifying.
So, how can “fake witnesses” exist? Last I heard, witnesses were required to appear on the witness stand, take the oath, and present their evidence.
The US Supreme Court has upheld the Confrontation Clause of the constitution in recent cases, too. The prosecuted have the right to face their accusers.