Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food

Faneuil’s Credibility

On paper, Douglas Faneuil ought not to be a very credible witness. According to the WSJ ($) report, Faneuil dramitized his performance to the point that a defense lawyer asked whether he had taken acting lessons. If you believe his version of events, Faneuil admits that he lied for months. Why should the jury take the word of an admitted liar? Especially an admitted liar who cut a deal with the prosecution and now has every incentive to sing the song written for him by the prosecutors? And he's a doper who feared drug prosecution. (Did the prosecution tell him that he'd be charged with drug offenses if they don't like his testimony?) Curiously, however, the press reports seem to indicate that he came across as credible to those who were in the courtroom. According to Henry Blodget: "Based on Douglas Faneuil's credible, dramatic testimony—as well as his survival of the first two hours of cross-examination—Martha Stewart's chances of conviction rise from 18 percent to 28 percent." BusinessWeek says: "For all his admissions of wrongdoing, Faneuil comes across as a strangely fascinating, sympathetic figure on the stand." Curious. And possibly very bad news for Martha. My bet is that the odds of a conviction go way up if the jury finds Faneuil credible and go to essentially zero if it doesn't.