Navigating the Witness Box: A Look at Michigan Rules of Evidence 601-615
In the courtroom, witness testimony plays a crucial role in unveiling the truth and determining the outcome of a case.
However, not everyone can simply walk into the courtroom and take the stand.
Michigan Rules of Evidence 601-615 establish a framework for determining who can testify, what they can say, and how their testimony is presented. This article delves into these rules, providing a factual overview based on the Michigan Rules of Evidence Handbook.
Have your rights been violated?
Have your driving priviledges been revoked?
Has your professional license been suspended?
Second Amendment rights taken away?
Have you been charged with a crime?
Call our office to see if we can help
Komorn Law 248-357-2550
Rule 601: Competency to Testify
This fundamental rule establishes a presumption of competency, stating that “every person is competent to be a witness.” This means that anyone, regardless of age, background, or mental capacity, can potentially take the stand. However, the rule also acknowledges exceptions. The court may find someone incompetent to testify if they lack “sufficient physical or mental capacity or sense of obligation to testify truthfully or understandably.” This determination usually involves questioning the witness and assessing their ability to perceive, recall, and communicate relevant information accurately.
Rule 602: Need for Personal Knowledge
Just because someone is competent doesn’t mean their testimony is automatically admissible. Rule 602 requires witnesses to have “personal knowledge” of the matters they are testifying about. This means they must have directly observed, heard, or experienced the events they are describing. Hearsay, or secondhand information, is generally not admissible under this rule. However, there are exceptions for certain types of hearsay evidence, such as business records or statements made under specific circumstances.
Rule 603: Oath or Affirmation
Before taking the stand, every witness must swear or affirm to tell the truth. This oath or affirmation serves to impress upon the witness the importance of their testimony and the potential consequences of lying. The form of the oath or affirmation can be adapted to accommodate the witness’s religious beliefs or cultural background.
Rule 604: Interpreter
When a witness doesn’t speak English fluently, an interpreter is needed to ensure accurate communication. Rule 604 requires interpreters to be qualified and to take an oath or affirmation to faithfully translate the witness’s testimony. The court has the discretion to appoint and supervise the interpreter to ensure fairness and accuracy.
Rule 605: Judge’s Competency as a Witness
To maintain impartiality and prevent conflicts of interest, Rule 605 prohibits the presiding judge from testifying as a witness in the same case. This applies even if the judge has relevant personal knowledge of the events in question. If the judge becomes a necessary witness, they must recuse themselves from the case.

Rule 606: Juror’s Competency as a Witness
Similar to the judge, Rule 606 restricts juror testimony in certain situations. Jurors may not testify before the other jurors during the trial, as this could influence their deliberations. Additionally, during an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, jurors are barred from testifying about their own mental processes or the deliberations of the jury. This protects the sanctity of the jury room and prevents tampering with the verdict.
Rule 610: Ruling on Hearings on Competency and Privilege
When questions arise about a witness’s competency or a claim of privilege, the court conducts a hearing outside the presence of the jury. This allows the judge to make a fair and informed ruling without influencing the jury’s perception of the witness or the evidence.
Rule 611: Mode and Order of Examining Witnesses
Rule 611 governs the manner in which witnesses are questioned. It allows each party to present their case through direct examination of their own witnesses and cross-examination of the opposing party’s witnesses. The court also has the authority to question witnesses to clarify or expand on their testimony.
Rule 612: Writing Used to Refresh Memory
Sometimes, witnesses may need to refresh their memory before or during their testimony. Rule 612 allows witnesses to use writings, such as notes, memoranda, or recordings, to recall past events. However, these writings themselves are not admissible as evidence unless they qualify under another rule.
Rule 613: Prior Statements of Witnesses
In certain circumstances, prior statements made by a witness outside of court can be used to impeach their credibility or explain inconsistencies in their testimony. Rule 613 outlines the conditions under which these prior statements can be admitted as evidence.
Rule 614: Calling and Examining Adverse Parties
This rule allows a party to call the opposing party as a witness during their own case. Additionally, it permits thorough questioning of the adverse party, even on matters that may be unfavorable to the party calling them.
Rule 615: Excluding Witnesses
To ensure fairness and prevent witnesses from tailoring their testimony to what they have heard from others,
Important:
This article provides a simplified overview of the Michigan Rules of Evidence for informational purposes only. It should not be interpreted as legal advice. When facing legal matters, always consult with a qualified attorney for professional guidance.
The Michigan Rules of Evidence are subject to change over time. Always consult the latest official version for accurate information.
Here is the link to the Michigan Rules of Evidence Handbook. Check the footer for the latest update.
Related Articles
No Results Found
The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.
More Posts

Southfield attorneys accuse MSP Crime Lab of negligence and incompetence
Two local attorneys have filed a formal complaint against the Michigan State Police Crime Lab, suggesting the agency should be made into an independent entity, but state officials have refuted the accusations of negligence and incompetence. Southfield-based...

Forensic scientists blast State Police crime lab THC policy as man fights to get son back
Maxwell Lorincz lives in Spring Lake near Lake Michigan with his wife and their six-year-old son. At least, they did live with their son, until a year and a half ago. They lost custody of him after Lorincz was charged with a felony for possessing synthetic THC....

People v Redden & Clark – MI Medical Marijuana hearing – February 20 2013
During this February 20, 2013 hearing, Assistant Oakland County Prosecutor Beth Hand notified the court that her office is contemplating filing criminal charges against a medical doctor for his involvement in certifying two medical marijuana patients, Robert Redden...

Medical marijuana lawyers want state crime lab moved out of Michigan State Police
"The attorneys claim the policy change is leading to unfair felony charges for patients who would otherwise face misdemeanors." Posted on MichiganRadio.org A group of criminal defense attorneys says the Michigan State Police (MSP) should no longer...

Defense attorneys seek fed inquiry of MSP crime labs
Southfield — Three defense attorneys are asking the federal government to investigate the Michigan State Police crime laboratories, alleging misconduct in their testing for pending drug cases. Southfield defense attorneys Neil Rockind and Michael Komorn, along...

MI Cops Change Policy So They Can Falsely Imprison Legal Pot Smokers
In 2008, an overwhelming majority of Michigan voters approved legislation to legalize marijuana for medical use in the state. With nearly 50,000 Michigan residents arrested and incarcerated each year for controlled substance violations, the state’s prison industrial...

Attorney Alleges Authorities `Bend The Science’ To Elevate Marijuana Cases
MIRS-Michigan Independent Source Of News and Information Friday Nov 6, 2015 Maxwell LORINCZ, of Spring Lake, says a fingerprint of oil on an empty plastic container led to his arrest on a drug charge on Sept. 24, 2014. Now, a year later, the case that might have...

Drug felonies without credible proof? — Allegations of politicking in state police crime labs
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. – First on FOX 17, we broke serious allegations that state police crime labs are being told to falsely report marijuana test results. This is resulting in misleading lab reports that an attorney claims creates felonies without real proof. ...

Attorney: Crime labs ‘falsified’ marijuana reports
A Southfield lawyer alleges the Michigan State Police crime labs have “falsified lab reports on marijuana statewide” and he’s asking a judge to dismisses charges lodged against a client. Michael Komorn, who also represents defendants in Livingston County, said...

Hearing in alleged false crime lab marijuana reporting dropped this week
OTTAWA COUNTY, Mich. – The evidentiary hearing originally set for Nov. 5 has been dropped in the case involving a medical marijuana patient charged with a disputed felony for synthetic THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. The Ottawa County Assistant...