Evidence, in the form of facts and materials, is crucial in proving the truth of a matter in court. Oral testimonies, which are verbal statements made by witnesses during legal proceedings, serve as a key method of gathering evidence. In assessing these testimonies, judges closely examine both the content of the evidence and the witness’s background to evaluate credibility and reliabil- ity. Reliability hinges on the testimony’s quality and accuracy, while credibility is influenced by the witness’s objectivity and competence. Objectivity is gauged by considering factors like bias, integrity, and demeanor. Competence, conversely, is determined by the witness’s mental state, language proficiency, memory, and other elements that may affect their ability to provide reliable testimony. However, the delivery of evidence is prone to bias. For example, while objectivity aspects are to some degree in the conscious command of a witness, the issues of competence are mostly outside of the witness’ control. As a result, evaluation of the evidence is made extremely difficult by the subjective and uncontrollable nature of oral testimonies. To prove the defendant’s guilt “beyond reasonable doubt,” judges must first presume innocence. This task becomes more complex when the primary evidence is derived from oral testimonies, where the judge’s subjective perception may lie at the heart of the matter.