| Copyright © 2006 - 2008 - Barry M. Baker - CareerPoliceOfficer.com |
| Disclaimer |
| CareerPoliceOfficer.com is not responsible for the contents of any linked site or any link contained in a linked site, or any changes or updates to such sites. Links are provided only as a convenience, and the inclusion of any link does not imply endorsement by this site. |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
Eye
Witness
Witness
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
If you listen to a lot of experts these days, the value of eyewitnesses to
crimes is a thing of the past. DNA has had a lot to do with the
devaluation of eyewitness identification of suspects. From time to time,
you'll hear of an instance when a person convicted of a crime, wherein
the conviction was based largely, or solely, on eyewitness testimony, is
exonerated through DNA testing. Sex crimes most often fall into this
category.
Defense attorneys will always attack eyewitness identifications by any
means available to them; however, it is ultimately up to a judge or jury
to determine the accuracy of eyewitness identification. As a police
officer, it will always be up to you to locate, identify, and isolate an
eyewitness(es) to a crime. It will be up to you to ensure that any
eyewitness identification of a suspect(s) is made completely free of
coercion of any kind. If you're fortunate to have an eyewitness(es),
that circumstance is simply one building block in your investigation.
You should never take the attitude that once you have an eyewitness,
you need do no more. While eyewitness identification will always
continue to be a critical and convincing factor in your investigations, you
must always exhaust all efforts to develop additional evidence to support
the eyewitness identification.
I learned very early in my career just how important an eyewitness
identification can be; however, had it not been for my near presence at
the crime scene when the crime occurred, the eyewitness identification
would have been useless:
You're going to be surprised just how honest most people become when
it comes to identifying a person accused of committing a crime. If or
when you do encounter a victim or witness who purposely attempts to
identify an innocent person, the reason(s) for the false identification
should be obvious to you -- if not immediately -- in very short order.
You'll definitely encounter victims and witnesses who are reluctant to
identify criminal suspects out of fear of retribution. Dealing with the
fearful victim or witness is very difficult, because your efforts to calm
and reassure them could always be construed as coercion somewhere
down the line.
Here's something you should find interesting. If you have ten
eyewitnesses to a crime, you'll never receive ten identical descriptions
of the event. The discrepancies may be minor, but there will always be
discrepancies. However, assuming the suspect and witnesses are
strangers to one another, when it comes time for those ten people to
identify the suspect at a later time, it's likely all will not be able to
make the identification with absolute certainty. While all the witnesses
were certain of what they saw during the event, they will subject their
observations to higher standards when identifying a person from a
line-up.
I've mentioned coercion a couple of times. You must never do anything
to influence a victim or witness identification of a suspect. There are a
lot of people who feel that if the police officer believes a certain person
to be the guilty suspect, that person must be the guilty suspect.
Whenever you show a victim/witness a photo line-up, you should always
tell the victim/witness that the suspect may, or may not be, in the photo
array. You'll know pretty quickly if the viewer is going to be able to
make a positive identification.
On those occasions when the viewer cannot make a positive
identification, it won't hurt to ask if there's any photo that looks like
the suspect. If the victim/witness indicates one, ask to what degree of
certainty the viewer has. If the viewer points to the suspect and replies,
"Eighty percent," that's what you put in your report. Let's say the case
goes to trial based on other evidence. While testifying, the
victim/witness may well be able to positively identify the suspect in the
courtroom setting. The defense will attack the victim/witness based on
the photo line-up; however, a jury can easily understand the difference
between looking at a photo and a face to face confrontation. If you'd
just submitted the line-up with a simple statement indicating that no
identification could be made, the jury would never know that the
victim/witness took any interest, let alone an eighty percent interest, in
the suspect's photo during the viewing.
Now...that can go the other way as well. The viewer could point to one of
the fill-in photos as looking most like the suspect. I mention this
because it did happen to me a couple of times. No matter, you still
record that information in your reporting. Remember, all the photos
are going to look very similar; that's the purpose of a fair and impartial
photo line-up.
Never forget...you're the truth seeker. Victims and witnesses are either
going to be positive in their identification of suspects, or they won't be
positive. Sure, they may be almost positive, and it's perfectly acceptable
to report that fact. However, you must never attempt to convince a
victim/witness, either by overt or subtle means, to make a positive
identification.
crimes is a thing of the past. DNA has had a lot to do with the
devaluation of eyewitness identification of suspects. From time to time,
you'll hear of an instance when a person convicted of a crime, wherein
the conviction was based largely, or solely, on eyewitness testimony, is
exonerated through DNA testing. Sex crimes most often fall into this
category.
Defense attorneys will always attack eyewitness identifications by any
means available to them; however, it is ultimately up to a judge or jury
to determine the accuracy of eyewitness identification. As a police
officer, it will always be up to you to locate, identify, and isolate an
eyewitness(es) to a crime. It will be up to you to ensure that any
eyewitness identification of a suspect(s) is made completely free of
coercion of any kind. If you're fortunate to have an eyewitness(es),
that circumstance is simply one building block in your investigation.
You should never take the attitude that once you have an eyewitness,
you need do no more. While eyewitness identification will always
continue to be a critical and convincing factor in your investigations, you
must always exhaust all efforts to develop additional evidence to support
the eyewitness identification.
I learned very early in my career just how important an eyewitness
identification can be; however, had it not been for my near presence at
the crime scene when the crime occurred, the eyewitness identification
would have been useless:
You're going to be surprised just how honest most people become when
it comes to identifying a person accused of committing a crime. If or
when you do encounter a victim or witness who purposely attempts to
identify an innocent person, the reason(s) for the false identification
should be obvious to you -- if not immediately -- in very short order.
You'll definitely encounter victims and witnesses who are reluctant to
identify criminal suspects out of fear of retribution. Dealing with the
fearful victim or witness is very difficult, because your efforts to calm
and reassure them could always be construed as coercion somewhere
down the line.
Here's something you should find interesting. If you have ten
eyewitnesses to a crime, you'll never receive ten identical descriptions
of the event. The discrepancies may be minor, but there will always be
discrepancies. However, assuming the suspect and witnesses are
strangers to one another, when it comes time for those ten people to
identify the suspect at a later time, it's likely all will not be able to
make the identification with absolute certainty. While all the witnesses
were certain of what they saw during the event, they will subject their
observations to higher standards when identifying a person from a
line-up.
I've mentioned coercion a couple of times. You must never do anything
to influence a victim or witness identification of a suspect. There are a
lot of people who feel that if the police officer believes a certain person
to be the guilty suspect, that person must be the guilty suspect.
Whenever you show a victim/witness a photo line-up, you should always
tell the victim/witness that the suspect may, or may not be, in the photo
array. You'll know pretty quickly if the viewer is going to be able to
make a positive identification.
On those occasions when the viewer cannot make a positive
identification, it won't hurt to ask if there's any photo that looks like
the suspect. If the victim/witness indicates one, ask to what degree of
certainty the viewer has. If the viewer points to the suspect and replies,
"Eighty percent," that's what you put in your report. Let's say the case
goes to trial based on other evidence. While testifying, the
victim/witness may well be able to positively identify the suspect in the
courtroom setting. The defense will attack the victim/witness based on
the photo line-up; however, a jury can easily understand the difference
between looking at a photo and a face to face confrontation. If you'd
just submitted the line-up with a simple statement indicating that no
identification could be made, the jury would never know that the
victim/witness took any interest, let alone an eighty percent interest, in
the suspect's photo during the viewing.
Now...that can go the other way as well. The viewer could point to one of
the fill-in photos as looking most like the suspect. I mention this
because it did happen to me a couple of times. No matter, you still
record that information in your reporting. Remember, all the photos
are going to look very similar; that's the purpose of a fair and impartial
photo line-up.
Never forget...you're the truth seeker. Victims and witnesses are either
going to be positive in their identification of suspects, or they won't be
positive. Sure, they may be almost positive, and it's perfectly acceptable
to report that fact. However, you must never attempt to convince a
victim/witness, either by overt or subtle means, to make a positive
identification.
I had been a police officer for less than a year, and I was
walking my foot post on E. North Avenue in East Batimore.
It was about ten o'clock on a weeknight, and everything was
pretty quiet. Vehicle traffic was light, and there wasn't a
pedestrian in sight. I was about fifty feet from the
Firehouse at North Avenue and Bond Street, and I was
thinking about stopping inside the Firehouse when the
sound of gunfire abruptly altered that idea.
The first shot got my attention, but I couldn't immediately
detect from what direction the shot came. Only a second
passed, and two more shots followed in rapid succession.
The gunfire clearly emanated from Bond Street around the
northwest corner of the Firehouse. I drew my revolver as I
began to cautiously approach the corner of the Firehouse
while notifying my dispatcher of the gunfire and my
location. When I was about twenty feet from the corner,
two young men came running around that corner. Had I
moved more rapidly toward that corner, there's no doubt
they would have collided with me. To say there was shock
all around would be an understatement.
I raised my revolver and shouted that universally
understood word, "Freeze!" The two men almost stumbled
as they tried to slow their forward movement. I
immediately detected that look of shock and fear in the
faces of the men that you'll often see in suspects you've just
caught in the act of committing a crime. They immediately
followed my order to place their hands against the front
garage door of the Firehouse. As I held the men at
gunpoint, they conversed with each other, but they weren't
talking loud enough for me to hear what they were saying.
I was busy notifying the dispatcher of my situation as
several firefighters exited the Firehouse to see what was
going on. As I was about to tell the two men to stop talking,
I detected movement to my right. I looked to see an elderly
woman standing across the street on the southwest corner
of Bond Street and E. North Avenue. The expression on the
woman's face clearly showed she was in distress. Before I
had a chance to say anything to the woman, she slowly
raised her right arm and pointed with her index finger
toward the two men. Her forthcoming statement then said
it all, "They just shot my husband."
I immediately turned my full attention to the two men, now
suspects, and their body language only added more. As soon
as the woman made her statement, both stopped conversing
and both abruptly dropped their heads forward chins to
chests. The Firemen were already turning the corner
running to aid the woman's wounded husband. They quickly
located the victim lying at the alley entrance on the west
side of Bond Street about forty feet south of the
intersection. Their lifesaving efforts were in vain since the
victim had been shot through the heart.
Other police officers began arriving on the scene followed
soon by the sector sergeant. In those days the sergeant was
God, and he soon had the crime scene secured with police
officers knocking on every door in the block searching for
witnesses. As the primary officer, I remained on the scene;
until, everything was completed. As for evidence, this was
long before DNA; however, there wouldn't have been any to
have since the suspect simply shot the victim dead when the
victim refused to hand over his wallet. The only evidence
that would ultimately be available was the victim's wife who
was the one and only eyewitness to the murder.
My interview of the wife established that there were a total
of three suspects. She told me that only one of the suspects
displayed a gun. When her husband refused to give the
armed suspect his wallet, the suspect simply began firing.
As her husband fell to the pavement, the armed suspect ran
westbound in the alley behind E. North Avenue while the
other two ran in the opposite direction northeast across
Bond Street and onto E. North Avenue where I apprehended
them.
After the crime scene had been processed, I returned to the
station where homicide detectives were interrogating my
suspects. About an hour passed when the detectives walked
into the squad room and spoke with me. I could sense that
all was not going well. As we all got seated, one of the
detectives looked at me and sighed, "Officer...we don't
think these guys were involved." The detective went on to
tell me that neither suspect knew the other and that only
one had an arrest record for only minor offenses. The
suspects told the detectives they were simply walking
northbound on the east side of Bond Street when they heard
the shots. When I apprehended them, they were simply
running away from the gunfire.
I knew I had a problem. Both detectives were competent
and experienced, and, here I was a rookie with only months
on the job. I had no doubt that both suspects were part of
the hold-up team, and now I had to convince these
detectives.
- I pointed out that when the suspects turned the corner,
they were practically joined at the hip. For two men who
didn't know one another, they must have been walking
pretty close together.
- For strangers, they had a lot to say to each other as they
leaned against the Firehouse door.
- Neither suspect said a word to me when I accosted them.
One would think they would have been eager to tell me
there was a man around the corner shooting a gun.
- I described the body language of both suspects when the
victim's wife made her identification. While the suspects'
continued silence could not be used as evidence of guilt, it
certainly was unusual.
- I went on to point out that Bond Street was a narrow
residential street. With no obstructions between the two
men and the gunfire, they could quickly identify the exact
source of the gunfire. If both men were south of the
east-west alley, running northbound, as they allege,
wouldn't much sense. If they were at or north of the alley,
they would have turned the corner onto E. North Avenue
long before they did. While we were only talking about
seconds, they should have been rounding that corner even
before I began my movement toward the corner.
I urged the detectives to continue their interrogations of
the suspects. I could understand the difficulties
encountered by the detectives. Both suspects had waived
their Miranda rights to counsel, and both suspects were
smart enough to stick to a pretty simple premise -- they
heard gunfire, and they ran. As the detectives returned to
their interrogations, I could only hope that I had
sufficiently articulated the critical time line which was
measured only in seconds.
Thirty minutes passed when the detectives reentered the
squad room. Both were smiling and shaking their heads. I
had underestimated these guys, but I was glad I had been
diplomatic when disagreeing with their initial
determination. Both detectives had returned to their
respective interrogations with a little more than they had
before, and they made the most of it. Both suspects, who
did in fact know each other, eventually confessed to their
involvement in the robbery turned murder, and they
identified the third suspect who actually committed the
murder.
The third suspect would eventually be arrested; however,
the gun he used in the murder was never recovered. At the
time of the crime, the suspect was bearded. When arrested,
he was clean shaven. When the victim's wife viewed the
photo line-up, she picked the suspect as the probable
suspect, but she could not be certain. Lacking her
identification, and the absence of any other witness(es) or
physical evidence, the third suspect was never prosecuted
for the murder he'd committed. The identification by his
accomplices was not sufficient for prosecution without
corroboration. As for the two accomplices I apprehended,
they both took a plea bargain for second-degree murder,
and each man was sentenced to a 15 year prison term.
walking my foot post on E. North Avenue in East Batimore.
It was about ten o'clock on a weeknight, and everything was
pretty quiet. Vehicle traffic was light, and there wasn't a
pedestrian in sight. I was about fifty feet from the
Firehouse at North Avenue and Bond Street, and I was
thinking about stopping inside the Firehouse when the
sound of gunfire abruptly altered that idea.
The first shot got my attention, but I couldn't immediately
detect from what direction the shot came. Only a second
passed, and two more shots followed in rapid succession.
The gunfire clearly emanated from Bond Street around the
northwest corner of the Firehouse. I drew my revolver as I
began to cautiously approach the corner of the Firehouse
while notifying my dispatcher of the gunfire and my
location. When I was about twenty feet from the corner,
two young men came running around that corner. Had I
moved more rapidly toward that corner, there's no doubt
they would have collided with me. To say there was shock
all around would be an understatement.
I raised my revolver and shouted that universally
understood word, "Freeze!" The two men almost stumbled
as they tried to slow their forward movement. I
immediately detected that look of shock and fear in the
faces of the men that you'll often see in suspects you've just
caught in the act of committing a crime. They immediately
followed my order to place their hands against the front
garage door of the Firehouse. As I held the men at
gunpoint, they conversed with each other, but they weren't
talking loud enough for me to hear what they were saying.
I was busy notifying the dispatcher of my situation as
several firefighters exited the Firehouse to see what was
going on. As I was about to tell the two men to stop talking,
I detected movement to my right. I looked to see an elderly
woman standing across the street on the southwest corner
of Bond Street and E. North Avenue. The expression on the
woman's face clearly showed she was in distress. Before I
had a chance to say anything to the woman, she slowly
raised her right arm and pointed with her index finger
toward the two men. Her forthcoming statement then said
it all, "They just shot my husband."
I immediately turned my full attention to the two men, now
suspects, and their body language only added more. As soon
as the woman made her statement, both stopped conversing
and both abruptly dropped their heads forward chins to
chests. The Firemen were already turning the corner
running to aid the woman's wounded husband. They quickly
located the victim lying at the alley entrance on the west
side of Bond Street about forty feet south of the
intersection. Their lifesaving efforts were in vain since the
victim had been shot through the heart.
Other police officers began arriving on the scene followed
soon by the sector sergeant. In those days the sergeant was
God, and he soon had the crime scene secured with police
officers knocking on every door in the block searching for
witnesses. As the primary officer, I remained on the scene;
until, everything was completed. As for evidence, this was
long before DNA; however, there wouldn't have been any to
have since the suspect simply shot the victim dead when the
victim refused to hand over his wallet. The only evidence
that would ultimately be available was the victim's wife who
was the one and only eyewitness to the murder.
My interview of the wife established that there were a total
of three suspects. She told me that only one of the suspects
displayed a gun. When her husband refused to give the
armed suspect his wallet, the suspect simply began firing.
As her husband fell to the pavement, the armed suspect ran
westbound in the alley behind E. North Avenue while the
other two ran in the opposite direction northeast across
Bond Street and onto E. North Avenue where I apprehended
them.
After the crime scene had been processed, I returned to the
station where homicide detectives were interrogating my
suspects. About an hour passed when the detectives walked
into the squad room and spoke with me. I could sense that
all was not going well. As we all got seated, one of the
detectives looked at me and sighed, "Officer...we don't
think these guys were involved." The detective went on to
tell me that neither suspect knew the other and that only
one had an arrest record for only minor offenses. The
suspects told the detectives they were simply walking
northbound on the east side of Bond Street when they heard
the shots. When I apprehended them, they were simply
running away from the gunfire.
I knew I had a problem. Both detectives were competent
and experienced, and, here I was a rookie with only months
on the job. I had no doubt that both suspects were part of
the hold-up team, and now I had to convince these
detectives.
- I pointed out that when the suspects turned the corner,
they were practically joined at the hip. For two men who
didn't know one another, they must have been walking
pretty close together.
- For strangers, they had a lot to say to each other as they
leaned against the Firehouse door.
- Neither suspect said a word to me when I accosted them.
One would think they would have been eager to tell me
there was a man around the corner shooting a gun.
- I described the body language of both suspects when the
victim's wife made her identification. While the suspects'
continued silence could not be used as evidence of guilt, it
certainly was unusual.
- I went on to point out that Bond Street was a narrow
residential street. With no obstructions between the two
men and the gunfire, they could quickly identify the exact
source of the gunfire. If both men were south of the
east-west alley, running northbound, as they allege,
wouldn't much sense. If they were at or north of the alley,
they would have turned the corner onto E. North Avenue
long before they did. While we were only talking about
seconds, they should have been rounding that corner even
before I began my movement toward the corner.
I urged the detectives to continue their interrogations of
the suspects. I could understand the difficulties
encountered by the detectives. Both suspects had waived
their Miranda rights to counsel, and both suspects were
smart enough to stick to a pretty simple premise -- they
heard gunfire, and they ran. As the detectives returned to
their interrogations, I could only hope that I had
sufficiently articulated the critical time line which was
measured only in seconds.
Thirty minutes passed when the detectives reentered the
squad room. Both were smiling and shaking their heads. I
had underestimated these guys, but I was glad I had been
diplomatic when disagreeing with their initial
determination. Both detectives had returned to their
respective interrogations with a little more than they had
before, and they made the most of it. Both suspects, who
did in fact know each other, eventually confessed to their
involvement in the robbery turned murder, and they
identified the third suspect who actually committed the
murder.
The third suspect would eventually be arrested; however,
the gun he used in the murder was never recovered. At the
time of the crime, the suspect was bearded. When arrested,
he was clean shaven. When the victim's wife viewed the
photo line-up, she picked the suspect as the probable
suspect, but she could not be certain. Lacking her
identification, and the absence of any other witness(es) or
physical evidence, the third suspect was never prosecuted
for the murder he'd committed. The identification by his
accomplices was not sufficient for prosecution without
corroboration. As for the two accomplices I apprehended,
they both took a plea bargain for second-degree murder,
and each man was sentenced to a 15 year prison term.
| The Interrogation |