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Have your driving priviledges been revoked?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

“A non-stop political game:” Former MSP Forensic Science director on false marijuana reporting …
DEWITT, Mich. – A former director of Michigan State Police Forensic Science addressed the serious allegations FOX 17 uncovered, which accuse the Attorney General’s office and state prosecutors of influencing state police crime labs to falsely report marijuana;...

Michigan’s medical marijuana law circumvented by crime labs’ THC reports, attorney charges
Posted on MLive 10/30/15 OTTAWA COUNTY, MI – An attorney claims prosecutors pressured state police crime labs to change the way THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, is reported in an effort to circumvent Michigan's medical marijuana law. Michael...

Medical-Marijuana Patient Alleges Prosecutors Swayed Crime Lab Drug Tests
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 4:11pm A Michigan medical-marijuana patient claims in court papers that state police crime labs are bending to pressure from prosecutors in analyzing marijuana samples, leading to harsher punishments. Maxwell Lorincz, 35, was originally...

Allegations: MSP falsely reporting marijuana, targeting card-carrying patients
SPRING LAKE, Mich. – The defense representing a Spring Lake father facing a felony marijuana charge is accusing Michigan State Police Forensic Science Division crime labs of misreporting marijuana intentionally. It’s an allegation with statewide implications. ...

When Being Hated…Is Revered
By Attorney Michael Komorn " Lieutenant, this lawyer is a pain in the ass, I can't stand him, I really hate him" This was my client's observation of the prosecutor after exiting the conference room she and I had been in for over an hour discussing and...

Lawyer slams decision to deny cannabis to autistic kids
"Allowing medical marijuana for those with autism was supposed to be the clinical trial," Komorn said. "Instead, we're going to have criminal trials." Lawyer slams decision to deny cannabis to autistic kids The Detroit News Article August 28, 2015 - Lansing —...

Father fighting to use medical marijuana concentrates
April 23, 2015 - In Western Michigan yet another Michigan Medical Marijuana patient is fighting for his freedom in a system of confusing laws. He is also fighting for the right to see his child all while the State of Michigan possibly destroys his family and...

Prosecutors drop marijuana charges against Michigan mom
Aug 5, 2015 - After a year long battle, Michigan Attorney Michael Komorn and his staff have chalked up another positive conclusion for a client caught up in the medical marijuana and forfeiture debacle. Some may consider it a win, but this slow ruination of a family...

Security Systems – You should have one!!
For most... a security video system is a tool to protect themselves from liability, false accusations and identify activities around their home or business. For some, such as thieves, those who make false accusations and liars...it works against them. There...

What’s required of you in a Michigan traffic stop?
July 24, 2015 Dashcam video released this week from a traffic stop shows how a confrontation between a Texas woman and the arresting officer escalated. Given the circumstances in the aforementioned Sandra Bland case, we wanted to find out what is allowed and not...