There’s been a lot of speculation about why Brett Kimberlin fought so hard to be able to testify and then kept himself off the witness stand. Gentle Reader, your guess is as good as mine, but I’m betting on fear of being trapped between perjury and the Fifth Amendment during cross examination. You see, he probably understood that he would be asked many of the same question that were in our discovery interrogatories.
One of the basic rules of examining a witness at trial is never to ask a question unless you already know the answer. That’s not true in discovery. The purpose of asking questions is to develop information that may lead to evidence that can be introduced at trial. However, that doesn’t mean that my lawyer and I did not already know the answers to my discovery interrogatories. We may have been looking for confirmation.
Still, some of TDPK’s statements during hearings or the trial or during proceedings in other courts appear to contradict his sworn statements made in answer to these interrogatories. In Maryland, contradictory sworn statements knowingly made about a material fact constitute a prima facie case of perjury.