Examining the Problem of Witness Intimidation

• NCJ Number: 89155
• Journal: Judicature Volume: 66 Issue: 10 Dated: (May 1983) Pages: 438-477
• Author(s): E Connick; R C Davis
• Date Published: 1983
• Length: 10 pages
• Sponsoring Agency: New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services; New York City Criminal Justice Coordinating Council; National Institute of Justice (NIJ); Daniel and Florence Guggenheim Foundation; US Dept of Justice NIJ Pub
• Corporate Author: Kings Cty Office of the District Attorney
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

Interviews with 109 intimidated witnesses and 11 criminal justice officials from the Brooklyn Criminal Court (New York) revealed that most witnesses were threatened more than once, often in their personal domains, and that 23 percent were revictimized. Officials knew the types of victims most vulnerable to threats, but were unaware of the prevalence of intimidation.

Abstract

The 1981 study asked witnesses whose cases had been decided in mid-1980 if they had been intimidated and then conducted telephone interviews with those who admitted being threatened, realizing that persons who had been most frightened were unlikely to agree to an interview. Of the respondents, 72 percent were both victims and eyewitnesses to the crime, and 59 percent of the cases involved violent crimes. Almost half the victims knew the defendant before the crime. Threats ranged from ominous looks or gestures to rumors and physical confrontation, with verbal threats being most common. Moreover, 72 percent were threatened in their homes, neighborhoods, schools, or workplaces where the criminal justice system can exert little control. The survey found that 69 percent of the witnesses reported threats to criminal justice officials whose primary response was to warn the defendant not to harass the witness. Few arrests were made, probably due to insufficient evidence. While 58 percent felt that reporting the threat helped, 22 percent were bothered again by defendants. Witnesses frequently complained that the case outcome was not strong enough or that the defendant should not have been released on bail. The criminal justice officials interviewed tended to overstate the kinds of assistance normally given to intimidated witnesses, but agreed that intimidation was a significant problem. Measures to reduce intimidation include separating victims and defendants immediately upon arrest, providing a separate waiting area for victims at police precincts and witness reception centers in courthouses, expediting cases where threats are reported, informing witnesses when defendants are released, and making smaller concessions in plea bargains when intimidation has been reported. The article includes tables and nine footnotes.