One final addendum is that we have as of right now no guarantee that the necromancer or non-corporeal entity that has reanimated said deceased person is not somehow capable of either altering the witness or unduly influencing the responses of said witness.
Therefore, the person or being responsible for said reanimation has to first pass muster as to their partiality on the case.
If they can’t do that then you can’t verify that the witness is giving truthful testimony beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt
You are correct: even when you have a live body on the stand about to give testimony, it is essential to lay the foundation as to who they are and their legitimacy. Obviously, if they aren’t who they say they are, that’s a huge problem. So the party who called the witness will have done their homework in advance, and the opposing lawyers will have been notified in advance of this witness’s appearance and conduct their own homework.
For when a person is testifying but they aren’t in the room, I understand that there are several requirements that a telepresence system must comply with, both technical and usability. Certainly, someone’s visage or image would be preferable to an audio-only phone call. Presumably, the jury needs to trust this witness to believe them or else it’s rather pointless. Nowadays, with deep fakes and AI, it could possibly become an issue in future if video appearances in court are actually faked, or if the suggestion becomes plausible due to advancements in the technology.
So if we think of the zombie not as a live body but someone whose presence is being facilitated by the necromancer’s abilities, then the necromancer must be quizzed as to the veracity of their abilities, and the court would have to question what limits must be imposed on the testimony to make it admissible.
If it’s anything like the bunk science that courts have previously adopted – bite mark analysis comes to mind – then it only takes one court to permit necromancy and other courts will point to that one case as precedence. This would only be a problem if the necromancy is flawed in some serious way.
One final addendum is that we have as of right now no guarantee that the necromancer or non-corporeal entity that has reanimated said deceased person is not somehow capable of either altering the witness or unduly influencing the responses of said witness.
Therefore, the person or being responsible for said reanimation has to first pass muster as to their partiality on the case.
If they can’t do that then you can’t verify that the witness is giving truthful testimony beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt
You are correct: even when you have a live body on the stand about to give testimony, it is essential to lay the foundation as to who they are and their legitimacy. Obviously, if they aren’t who they say they are, that’s a huge problem. So the party who called the witness will have done their homework in advance, and the opposing lawyers will have been notified in advance of this witness’s appearance and conduct their own homework.
For when a person is testifying but they aren’t in the room, I understand that there are several requirements that a telepresence system must comply with, both technical and usability. Certainly, someone’s visage or image would be preferable to an audio-only phone call. Presumably, the jury needs to trust this witness to believe them or else it’s rather pointless. Nowadays, with deep fakes and AI, it could possibly become an issue in future if video appearances in court are actually faked, or if the suggestion becomes plausible due to advancements in the technology.
So if we think of the zombie not as a live body but someone whose presence is being facilitated by the necromancer’s abilities, then the necromancer must be quizzed as to the veracity of their abilities, and the court would have to question what limits must be imposed on the testimony to make it admissible.
If it’s anything like the bunk science that courts have previously adopted – bite mark analysis comes to mind – then it only takes one court to permit necromancy and other courts will point to that one case as precedence. This would only be a problem if the necromancy is flawed in some serious way.