What happens to testimony taken before the administration of the oath?

Testimony taken before the administration of the oath is generally considered inadmissible in court. The oath serves a critical function in the judicial process by emphasizing the importance of truthfulness and integrity in the testimony being provided. It establishes a legal and moral obligation for the witness to tell the whole truth, and without that sworn commitment, any statements made may lack reliability and can lead to questions about their accuracy and voluntariness.

When a witness gives testimony without first being sworn in, that testimony does not carry the same weight as sworn testimony, as the witness has not formally committed to truthfulness. As a result, courts typically will not allow such testimony to be presented, reinforcing the integrity of the judicial process and the expectation of honesty among witnesses.

While other options suggest variations around the admissibility of unsworn testimony, they do not reflect the standard legal principle that testimony must be given under oath to be considered valid in court proceedings. This emphasizes the fundamental role that oaths play in ensuring that the judicial process is based on truthful and reliable information.