Across the Curriculum with Detective Fiction for Young People and Adults

Objectives

Teacher and Student Objectives

The teacher's objective is to teach a comprehensive curriculum unit on the problems and repercussions associated with uncooperative witnesses. This curriculum unit will focus on the definition of snitching and the elements of police investigation as it relates to locating a witness to a crime, together with the legal aspects of witness intimidation, statutory provisions for witness intimidation, ethnic and social perspectives in policing, witness protection and police corruption. The ultimate goal in developing this curriculum unit is to introduce positive aspects of detective investigation through crime fiction and to remove the stigma of being a snitch when a person comes forth to help solve a crime. The idea here is to teach tenth and eleventh graders at a vocational school the many facets of the investigative process, with the understanding that many crimes are not solved because of reluctant witnesses. It is further my objective to teach employability skills, especially to the eleventh graders, as these relate to ethics in the legal field as well as in the workplace.

Many students whom I teach have not been introduced to the genre of crime fiction at all, or in any case do not realize that such fiction can help them to identify clues that may be hidden and connected to real life situations. The students will come away from this curriculum unit with a better understanding of how an author's writing portrays semblances of themselves within a novel, or cleverly hides information within a plot that directly relates to the events of today and yesterday.

The students' objectives are to gain insight into police procedures as they relate to crime investigation and investigating witnesses. I am also hopeful that the students learn that upholding legal and ethical standards is weighed extremely heavily and is required of them in the field of law. They should be able to intelligently analyze both sides of the snitching dilemma in order to make sound judgments. The students' objectives are to be empowered by hopefully coming forth to share information about a crime and to accept the challenge of speaking up in spite of social and community pressures. It is important for students to leave the lesson knowing they should not be viewed as a snitch, but be regarded as an upstanding citizen who contributes to the protection of their community.

Police Investigation

When a crime occurs, it is the duty of the detective to investigate the crime. Police investigative techniques include collection of evidence by crime scene analysis, fingerprints, photography, witness interview, interrogation and more. Ordinarily, witnesses may be approached at or near the crime scene or be asked to come to the police station to give their statement. During a police investigation, and usually prior to pretrial hearings, witnesses are reluctant to speak to the police because they fear exposure. Victims and witnesses with criminal records or active parole and probation restrictions may be particularly hesitant to provide information to the police. Also, witnesses who were accomplices to the original offense may be choice targets for intimidation. And in inter-gang violence, where the roles of offender, victim, and witness are often interchangeable and revolving, victims and witnesses may not cooperate with the police because they themselves intend to retaliate against the offender. (Johnson, P. 4) But if all this can be overcome, the detective will ascertain pertinent information from the witness, such as their name, address, phone number, and a detailed statement of what they saw. At this time, it is important for the witness to share their concerns about potential threats of intimidation from someone.

Police Corruption and Social Perspectives in Policing

Police corruption can materialize in many forms. This would include taking bribes or gratuities, lying, drug trafficking and many other serious infractions. In the context of this curriculum unit, police corruption is connected to intimidation of witnesses through confidential informants. Police will set up individuals by soliciting and pressuring people to lie about a person in order to secure a criminal conviction against them. It is stated clearly in Edera Davis' book Snitchcraft, "they [police] set them up to bust them." The book portrays as a driving force the wish to pressure people into lying about an innocent person just so the police can get a conviction. Although this book deals with a fictional character, many people in urban communities believe the police play "dirty" in order to incarcerate minorities. Because of this viewpoint, being classified as a snitch is not seen as helping the victim, but more like placing a star on the police officer's badge, because they are corrupt in sending innocent people to jail.

Witness Intimidation

Being classified as a snitch is intertwined with witness intimidation. If a witness experiences fear based upon the threats of someone, or is compelled because of the street stigma to withhold vital information that could potentially solve a crime, the witness is considered intimidated by such factors. Cases involving domestic violence, bias crimes, harassment and sex offenses are most likely to involve witness intimidation. Witness intimidation commonly takes two mutually-reinforcing forms: 1) case-specific intimidation which involves threats or violence intended to discourage a particular person from providing information to police or from testifying in a specific case; and 2) community-wide intimidation which involves acts that are intended to create a general sense of fear and an attitude of non-cooperation with police and prosecutors within a particular community. (Johnson, P. 2) Some reasons why witnesses are reluctant to come forth include:

1. Fear of being beaten or killed through retaliation by the perpetrator or their affiliates. This is clearly depicted in the book See No Evil. Because both witnesses are aware of the perpetrator's history of violence, they decide not to talk because they too are afraid of being hurt;
2. Fear of being labeled as a snitch (this ranks very high);
3. Fear of the police;
4. Disliking or mistrusting the police;
5. Social status, or being ostracized by people in the neighborhood;
6. Don't want to "bother" police (not actually intimidated). For example, the witness is unsure that what they saw could be beneficial to the police in solving a crime. (DePasquale, P. 1). This type of witness is common in detective fiction;
7. Protecting oneself because of one's own involvement, i.e. self implication or self-incrimination;
8. Admitting what you know would be admitting something that could potentially "make" the witness "appear" guilty of a crime even though they are not, simply because they were in a particular place when an actual crime was committed. This might tempt the witness not to snitch. This is also common in British genteel crime fiction.
9. Surprisingly, unfocused anger that is directed at the police or correctional system. These types of witnesses may actually mislead the police.³

Witness intimidation comes in various forms and methods such as:

1. Physical threats to witness or family members
2. Assault and murder
3. Threatening phone calls
4. Threatening notes and/or letters
5. Online threats through websites, email, chat rooms or IM's
6. Stalking or loitering at or near a person's residence, work or other places the witness frequents
7. Vandalism or damage to the witness's property
8. Social isolation of the person that reported the crime

Each of these methods of intimidation is very serious. They can be subtle or blatant. Thus, when a witness is approached and is faced with any forms of intimidation, having the witness come forth to tell what they know about a crime is compromised, leaving no means of proving the criminal offense.

Responses to Witness Intimidation

There are many responses to witness intimidation. Increased legislation against those who intimidate witnesses and aggressive punishment of them would be helpful in giving witnesses the assurance that they are protected when offering information about a crime. As far as possible concerns about hostile reaction, an essential solution to this dilemma would be an improved relationship between the police and the community they serve. Specifically, respect for the entire criminal justice system would increase the chances of a witness coming forth to assist a criminal investigation. Law enforcement, along with the courts, could limit the offers of bargaining for money and decreased penalties to confidential informants. This will help to eliminate the cycle of the "bad guy" being paid for information (or in some cases lies) about a person just for a reduction in their sentence, or payment by the government as a confidential informant. There are many other things that could be done, but the responses listed here are a few that are essential to reduce witness intimidation. These responses could also help to change the attitude of urban neighborhoods, so that witnesses could readily come forth to assist in a criminal case without being pegged as a snitch.

Witness Protection

According to the Department of Justice, U. S. Marshal Service, those witnesses who provide essential testimony in a criminal case and whose life, or families' lives, are at risk, must be protected. The testimony must be credible and the threat must be imminent. Specific crimes such as organized crime, racketeering, drug trafficking, federal felonies, and state offenses, all civil and administrative proceedings in which testimony that is given by a witness may place the witness's safety in jeopardy, will be considered. After the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City on 9-11, testifying against terrorist organizations was also included in this list of specific crimes. In extreme cases, a witness is given a new identity and is relocated to protect their safety.⁴ With local jurisdictions, witness protection is correlated with police investigative techniques. This would include anonymous contacts, secure location to interview a witness, surveillance and more. Once the threat to a witness is known by law enforcement, the police department would follow set policies and procedures designated for their force.

Statutory Provisions Concerning Witness Intimidation

In my research, many statutory provisions rest with state and local jurisdictions. Many states have misdemeanor and felony laws prohibiting witness intimidation. For example, the state of Louisiana currently has statutes for witness intimidation, but on April 30, 2004 in HB 43 Louisiana expanded the penalties and approved a bill imposing the death penalty for the murder of a witness or a member of the witness's family to prevent testimony or exact revenge.⁵ This is a severe penalty that could help to deter witness intimidation. Perhaps other states will adopt such strict penalties in the future.

There are cases that have been sent to the U.S. Supreme Court for review on witness intimidation. One such case that requested a writ of certiorari was Monroe v. Butler, 485 U.S. 1024 (1988), but the writ was denied. Even though the U.S. Supreme Court denied the writ, it would be good for the students to read the facts of the case, along with the opinions of the Justices. In the Monroe case, the defendant was convicted of murdering his neighbor in New Orleans, LA. Monroe received the death penalty. A witness tip by a cellmate in another jurisdiction was discovered that could potentially implicate someone other than Monroe. The tip was held and not shared with the defense. The District Court in Louisiana found that this evidence "create[d] a reasonable doubt as to Monroe's guilt that did not previously exist." App. to Pet. for Cert. 5c.⁶ In another case, Kush v. Rutledge, 460 U.S. 719 (1983) the appeal was unanimously affirmed by the court. The issue before the court dealt with federal and state tribunals. The respondent Rutledge had asserted a variety of common-law and statutory claims against Arizona State University and its officials arising out of incidents that occurred while he was a member of the University's football squad. One of his claims is that three of the petitioners - the Arizona State University athletic director, head football coach, and assistant football coach - engaged in a conspiracy to intimidate and threaten various potential material witnesses in order to prevent them from testifying "freely, fully and truthfully" in his lawsuit in federal court. The students could look at the facts of this case and get a better understanding of the Justices' rationale in deciding this case.