A witness in a court trial, lying!?
Perish the thought.
No. (1) Used to be, a person drowned would be declared dead. Now they can be resurrected through relatively simple life-saving techniques. (2) If, however, you are referring to a more extreme situation, for example a corpse that has been buried underground for a few years, I've only seen that in movies. Fiction? Or documentary? - being presented as fiction, just to fool us!
(3) Then there is the argument made by some that "resurrection" doesn't refer to the body at all, but to the spirit. Maybe they are right. (3a) Some say it is an elevation of understandng in some group of ill-defined size, from coven-sized to word-wide.
(D) Body, spirit, soul, consciousness, strands, "matter in motion" minus the matter, I don't care, whatever happens has been happening for thousands of years to billions of people, so when it happens to me, I expect it will feel commonplace.
But many people believe that delayed physical resurrection is doable and inevitable. I am not as strongly emotionally attached to my religious beliefs as many others with clearer doctrines, so I try not to get as defensive (nor offensive, I hope) when someone does argue for their religious beliefs, whether bodily resurrection, the rapture, reincarnation, "The Atonement", Creationism, Darwinism, Three-Gods-in-One, etc.
A court should fairly ("objectively") examine every item properly presented to it, in order to determine its admissibilty as evidence in the trial. A court has the authority, as I understand, to allow all the absurd testimonies it wants, and reject pertinent evidence, the latter seeming to me to be the more common.
