Legal Definitions - oath against an oath

An "oath against an oath" describes a situation in a legal proceeding where two parties provide directly contradictory sworn testimonies, and there is no additional independent evidence (such as documents, recordings, or third-party witnesses) to support one testimony over the other. In such a scenario, a judge or jury must decide which party's sworn statement is more credible based solely on their presentation, demeanor, and the inherent plausibility of their account. This creates a challenge for the court, as it essentially becomes a "swearing match" where the outcome depends on assessing the believability of each person's word.

Here are some examples to illustrate this concept:

• Verbal Business Agreement:

  Imagine two business partners, Liam and Chloe, who had a verbal agreement about how to split the profits from a successful project. When the time comes to distribute the funds, Liam testifies under oath that they agreed to a 60/40 split in his favor, while Chloe, also under oath, insists they agreed to a 50/50 split. Since there was no written contract, emails, or other witnesses to their initial conversation, the court is faced with Liam's "oath against Chloe's oath." The judge must then decide which partner's sworn testimony is more believable based on their credibility and the surrounding circumstances.

• Minor Traffic Incident:

  Consider a minor car accident in a parking lot between drivers Emily and Mark. Emily testifies under oath that Mark backed into her stationary vehicle. Mark, also under oath, testifies that Emily's car rolled forward and hit his while he was backing out. There were no independent witnesses, security camera footage, or conclusive physical evidence (like specific paint transfers) to definitively prove either claim. In this situation, the court must resolve the "oath against an oath" by assessing the credibility of Emily's sworn statement versus Mark's sworn statement to determine fault.

• Workplace Harassment Allegation:

  During an internal company investigation, an employee named Sarah accuses her manager, Mr. Davies, of making an inappropriate comment during a private one-on-one meeting. Sarah testifies under oath about the specific remark and its impact. Mr. Davies, also under oath, vehemently denies ever making such a comment, stating their conversation was entirely professional. Since no other individuals were present during the alleged conversation and no recording was made, the investigators are presented with Sarah's "oath against Mr. Davies's oath." They must then weigh the credibility of each individual's sworn testimony to reach a conclusion.