Victim and Witness Intimidation

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

DEP

ARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OF

FIC

E OF JUSTICE PRO

GR

AM

S

BJA

N

IJOJJ DP BJS

OV

C

Victim and Witness Intimidation:New Developments and Emerging Responsesby Kerry Murphy Healey

R e s e a r c h i n A c t i o n

National Institute of JusticeJeremy Travis, Director October 1995

continued . . .

witnesses by gangs or drug-selling groupspromotes the communitywide perceptionthat any cooperation with the criminal jus-tice system is dangerous.

This Research in Action is based on struc-tured interviews with 32 criminal justiceprofessionals from 20 urban jurisdictions,including prosecutors; victim services di-rectors; Federal, State, and local law en-forcement officers; judges; and scholars.1

Also included are the insights offered by aworking group of 20 criminal justice pro-fessionals, who met in September 1994to exchange information on emergingresponses to the problem of victim andwitness intimidation. The preliminaryfindings of this National Institute ofJustice-sponsored project indicate manyrecent developments in the nature ofwitness and victim intimidation and a widerange of existing and emerging strategiesto address the problem.

Characteristics of victim and wit-ness intimidation

Most interview respondents estimated thatmore victims were murdered and otherwiseintimidated in domestic violence cases intheir jurisdictions each year than in gangor drug crime-related intimidation at-tempts. Respondents and working group

Intimidation of victims and witnessesundermines the functioning of the justicesystem by denying critical evidence topolice and prosecutors. This long-stand-ing problem also erodes confidence inthe government’s ability to protect citi-zens. Victim and witness intimidationhas usually been associated with orga-nized crime and domestic violencecases. But this form of intimidation isdeveloping new characteristics as its oc-currence increases in urban drug- andgang-related violent crime.

Intimidation can be characterized as:

● Case-specific—threats or violence in-tended to dissuade a victim or witnessfrom testifying in a specific case.

● Communitywide—acts by gangs ordrug-selling groups intended to foster ageneral atmosphere of fear and noncoop-eration within a neighborhood or com-munity.

The wholesale intimidation of neighbor-hoods by gangs or drug-selling groupscan be as harmful to witness cooperationas an explicit threat against an indi-vidual. Communitywide and case-spe-cific intimidation may operate separatelyor in tandem. However, each case-spe-cific act of violence against victims or

HighlightsProsecutors in some jurisdictions re-port an increase in victim and wit-ness intimidation: some prosecutorshave estimated intimidation as afactor in 75 to 100 percent of theviolent crimes committed in somegang-dominated neighborhoods.This Research in Action summarizesrecent developments in gang- anddrug-related intimidation of victimsand witnesses, current responses tothe problem by police and prosecu-tors, and emerging models andstrategies for its prevention andsuppression.

The nature of intimidation

● Gang- and drug-related intimida-tion may be case-specific orcommunitywide. The wholesale in-timidation of neighborhoods can beas harmful to witness cooperationas an explicit threat made againstan individual. Each case-specific actof violence against victims or witnessespromotes the communitywide percep-tion that any cooperation with thecriminal justice system is dangerous.

● Factors that contribute to thereluctance of witnesses to stepforward include fear, strong com-munity ties, or a deepseated distrustof law enforcement. Communitymembers may also consider gangand drug crimes as outside the scopeof their concern or responsibility.

● Factors that increase the likeli-

2


tors noted that only unsuccessful intimi-dation attempts ever came to the atten-tion of police or prosecutors.5 Today,prosecutors report that extremely violentintimidation attempts—which are almostalways successful—are coming to theirattention with increasing frequency.These extremely violent intimidation at-tempts are often gang- and drug-related.

A recent national assessment of gangprosecution sponsored by NIJ providesimportant new data supporting anecdotalestimates of the prevalence of victim andwitness intimidation offered by policeadministrators and prosecutors.6 Accord-ing to this assessment, 51 percent ofprosecutors in large jurisdictions and 43percent in small jurisdictions said thatthe intimidation of victims and witnesseswas a major problem, while an additional30 percent of prosecutors in largejurisdictions and 25 percent in smalljurisdictions labeled intimidation a mod-erate problem.

Causes of individuals’ reluctance to bewitnesses. Examples of mass intimida-tion given by police and prosecutors (see“No One Is Willing to Testify”) suggestthat fear is only one factor contributingto the reluctance of witnesses to step for-ward; strong community ties and a deep-seated distrust of law enforcement mayalso be strong deterrents to cooperation.The communities in which many of thesegangs operate are often worlds untothemselves—places where people live,attend school, and work, all within a ra-dius of only a few blocks—from whichthey rarely venture out. More impor-tantly, victims and witnesses usuallyknow the gang members and defendantsagainst whom they are asked to testify;typically, victims and witnesses are thechildren of the gang member’s friends orrelatives, members of the same church,classmates, or neighbors. Furthermore,the community may regard many of the

members agreed that intimidation indomestic violence cases is different innature from gang-related intimidationbecause of the close relationship betweendomestic partners and the near univer-sality of intimidation in domestic violencecases. However, respondents agreedthat intimidation associated with gang-and drug-related violent crime was es-calating, while intimidation linked todomestic violence was continuing at asteady rate.

The extent of the problem. A numberof prosecutors linked the increase in vio-lent victim and witness intimidation tothe advent of gang-controlled crack salesin the mid- to late-1980’s. As crack salesgrew, some urban prosecutors noted an up-turn in gang- and drug-related homicides.2

Several prosecutors estimated that todayvictim and witness intimidation is sus-pected in up to 75-100 percent of theviolent crimes committed in some gang-dominated neighborhoods.3

The 1992 National Crime VictimizationSurvey suggests that in neighborhoodsnot plagued by gangs and drug sales,fear and intimidation play a much lesssignificant part in the failure to cooper-ate with police and prosecutors.4 Thediscrepancy between the perception ofurban police and prosecutors and thefindings of the National Crime Victim-ization Survey is important: victim andwitness intimidation is endemic in neigh-borhoods infested with gang activity anddrug sales and virtually invisible topeople outside those neighborhoods.The majority of citizens outside gang-dominated neighborhoods learn aboutvictim and witness intimidation onlythrough the media.

Victim and witness intimidation resistsquantitative analysis, but some data areemerging that give a clearer picture ofthe problem. A decade ago, commenta-

Highlightscontinued . . .

hood of intimidation include the vio-lent nature of the initial crime, a pre-vious personal connection to thedefendant, geographic proximity tothe defendant, and membership in aculturally vulnerable group.

Police and prosecutor approaches

● Traditional approaches to theproblem of victim and witness intimi-dation include warnings to the de-fendant concerning obstruction ofjustice laws, high bail, aggressiveprosecution of reported intimidationattempts, and, in extreme cases,threatened individuals’ entry in theFederal witness security program.

● Some innovative interventions togang- and drug-related intimidationinclude emergency relocation andsupport for threatened witnesses,innovative courtroom security mea-sures, interagency cooperation tomove threatened witnesses who re-side in public housing to new areas,secure segregation of intimidated vic-tims and witnesses in correctional fa-cilities, and community outreach andcollaboration among criminal justice,social service, and communitygroups.

● Emerging strategies also empha-size intimidation prevention and con-trol through community outreachbased on community policing andprosecution approaches and en-hanced communication among lawenforcement, prosecutors, and thejudiciary.

Target audience: Prosecutors; lawenforcement officials; criminal justiceresearchers in the fields of prosecu-tion, community policing, and crimi-nal gangs; judges; and providers ofvictim services.


2

3


● A previous personal connection tothe defendant.

● Geographic proximity to the defendant.

● Cultural vulnerability—that is,membership in an easily victimizedgroup, such as the elderly, children,or recent or illegal immigrants.

Residents of gang-dominated neigh-borhoods are likely to fall into morethan one of these categories, greatlyincreasing their exposure tointimidation.

Most nonviolent crimes (such as drugsales or use, burglaries, or white collarcrimes) rarely involve victim andwitness intimidation. By contrast,victims and witnesses in violent crimecases (such as rape, murder, and gangassaults), where more severe penaltiesmay be imposed, are at higher risk ofexperiencing intimidation.

In general, victims and witnesses whohave no previous relationship andshare no community ties with thedefendant or suspect are better insu-lated from intimidation. Victims andwitnesses who have been—and stay—relocated and are able to keep theirhome and work addresses secret arealso generally immune to intimidation.Prosecutors and police considered itextremely rare for a defendant or asso-ciate to leave his or her own commu-nity or socioeconomic milieu tointimidate a victim or witness inanother jurisdiction.

Given these characteristics of victimand witness intimidation, prosecutorswho handle primarily nonviolent orwhite collar crimes may be largely un-affected by victim and witness intimi-dation, even in jurisdictions in whichintimidation is rampant in isolatedneighborhoods. But prosecutors who

crimes for which witnesses are soughtas private business matters amonggang members or drug dealers, notcrimes against the community.

Both case-specific and communitywidefear of retaliation are fed by the growthof powerful prison gangs whose mem-bers return quickly to the communitybecause of brief sentences or are ablefrom behind bars to arrange for friendsor family members to threaten anypotential witnesses. Due to the uninter-rupted connections between incarcer-ated and neighborhood gang members,victims and witnesses no longer feelthat imprisonment of the defendantpending trial or after conviction canensure their safety in the community.The knowledge that gangs have easyaccess to members of the communitydeters many witnesses at once. Pros-ecutors noted that the mere fact that acrime is gang- related is often suffi-cient to prevent an entire neighborhood

from cooperating. Communitywide in-timidation was the most frustrating typeof intimidation for prosecutors and po-lice because, even if no actionablethreat is ever made, witnesses and vic-tims are still deterred from testifying.Prosecutors and police emphasize thatthe general atmosphere of intimidationand violence common to drug- andgang-dominated neighborhoods—in-cluding frequent personal exposure todrive-by shootings, armed robberies,and drug sales—is itself sufficiently in-timidating to dissuade many witnessesfrom testifying.

Targets of victim and witnessintimidation. No typical victim ofintimidation exists, but interviewrespondents and working groupparticipants pointed to four factorsthat increase the chance that a victimor witness will be intimidated:

● The violent nature of the initial crime.

rosecutors and homicide investiga-tors are now faced with crimes in whichthere are numerous known witnesses—and in many cases known perpetrators—but no one is willing to testify.

● A drug-related shooting occurs at a soft-ball game; three players are killed in fullview of the spectators, but no cooperativewitnesses can be found.

● Drug-selling gangs regularly comman-deer public housing buildings or com-plexes—removing legitimate tenants fromtheir apartments, threatening or bribingmanagement, and terrorizing the elderly.According to a homicide detective in theSan Francisco Bay area, the victimized ten-ants do not resist or report the takeovers,because gang members tell them “you can

No One Is Willing to Testify be dead” in the time it would take the policeto respond.

● Such bold attempts at communitywide in-timidation are not limited to the largest juris-dictions. A similar drug-related takeover of apublic housing complex was reported byhousing police in a jurisdiction with a popu-lation of only 600,000.

Law enforcement officers in the District ofColumbia estimated that for each of the ap-proximately 500 homicides reported in1993, there were 4 to 5 intended victimswho were shot, but survived, and another15 to 25 intended victims who were shot at,but not hit.7 If one considers that each ofthese victims and intended victims is linkedto families and neighbors, it is possible to en-vision how entire communities can be si-lenced quickly by gang intimidation.

P

4


specialize in gangs, homicide, violentfelonies, domestic violence, and childabuse often confront issues related tovictim and witness intimidation on adaily basis.

Types of victim and witnessintimidation

Intimidation of an individual or a com-munity may involve many of the sametactics, including physical violence,explicit or implicit threats of physicalviolence, property damage, and court-room intimidation. Attempts by gangsor drug dealers to promote community-wide noncooperation may include theexecution, assault, or public humiliationof victims or witnesses (or their families)suspected of cooperation, and randompublic acts of extreme brutality intendedto terrify potential witnesses.

Explicit threats of physical violence.Prosecutors and police reported a highincidence of threatened physical vio-lence either against victims or wit-nesses or their families. Theserespondents stated that threats of vio-lence were much more common thanactual violence but were often just aseffective in deterring cooperation be-cause, in gang- and drug-dominatedcommunities, such threats are credible.Prosecutors said that threats againstthe victim’s or witness’s mother, chil-dren, wife, or partner were particularlyeffective forms of intimidation.

Physical violence. While some inci-dents of physical violence were reportedby respondents in all 20 jurisdictions,physical violence was reported to bemuch more common in some jurisdic-tions than others. In addition, estimatesof the frequency of physical violencevaried even within the same jurisdic-tion, depending on the responsibilitiesof the individual interviewed. Prosecu-

tors and police in eight urban jurisdic-tions reported that violent acts of in-timidation—including homicides,drive-by shootings, knee-cappings,and beatings—occur on a daily orweekly basis.

Indirect intimidation. A third com-mon form of intimidation, reported inalmost every jurisdiction, involved in-direct intimidation, such as gang mem-bers parked outside the victim’s orwitness’s house, nuisance phone calls,or vague verbal warnings by the defen-dant or his or her associates.

Property damage. Only slightly lesscommon than the three types of intimi-dation described above was intimida-tion involving the destruction ofproperty. Property destruction can in-volve drive-by shootings into a victim’sor witness’s house, fire bombing ofcars, burning houses, or hurling bricksthrough the window of a car or home.

Courtroom intimidation. Anothercommon form of intimidation involvedthreatening looks or gestures directedby the defendant to the witness in thecourtroom during the preliminaryhearing or trial. Court-packing bymembers of a gang can be a particu-larly effective form of intimidation.Gang members demonstrate solidaritywith the defendant—and make cleartheir readiness and ability to harm thewitness—by wearing black (symboliz-ing death) or using threatening handsignals. Because the judge and pros-ecutors may not understand the mean-ing of the gestures or other nonverbalthreats, they may overlook these explicitattempts to intimidate the witness. Inother cases, the judge is aware of whatthe gang members are doing but feelsthat ejecting the individuals from thecourtroom would violate the defendants’constitutional right to a public trial.

Other forms of intimidation. Lesscommon forms of intimidation thatprosecutors and police reported includeeconomic threats (in domestic violenceor fraud cases) and threats concerningthe custody of children, deportation,and the withholding of drugs from anaddicted victim or witness or from ad-dicted members of the person’s family.

Primary actors in victim andwitness intimidation

Interviews with prosecutors, police of-ficers, and working group memberspointed to the types of individuals whomost commonly intimidate victims andwitnesses: the defendant, his or herfamily, gang members (where thecrime is gang-related), and non-gangfriends and associates of thedefendant.

Other types of individuals reported tobe involved in intimidation includedneighbors who condone or profit fromthe illegal activity of the defendant(such as drug sales), inmates in thesame correctional facility as an incar-cerated victim or witness, and, infre-quently, defense attorneys hired bygang members.

Some prosecutors expressed concernsabout witness information that wasgiven to defendants, including, insome instances, confidential court pa-pers. In many jurisdictions, prisonershave unmonitored access to phones,and their correspondence is notscreened, making it easy for even in-carcerated defendants or offenders toarrange intimidation attempts usingimproperly obtained information. Somegangs are said to hire attorneys to rep-resent incarcerated witnesses who maybe in custody as a result of the crimein question or on another unrelatedcharge. The gangs hire these lawyers

5


enables them to avoid conviction andincarceration (see “Timing of Intimi-dation”), intimidation attempts in-crease and become more violent.However, victim and witness intimida-tion does not seem to hamper success-ful prosecution if a reluctant butcooperative witness can be offered se-curity by prosecutors, police, or victimservices workers. Nevertheless, inter-view respondents were able to identifyvery few comprehensive witness secu-rity programs; most jurisdictions thatconfront the problem have only ad hocarrangements to provide security forvictims and witnesses threatened bygangs and drug sellers. As a result,both prosecutors and police voicedfrustration that a growing number ofserious cases, including shootings andhomicides, are not being presented forprosecution at all due to widespreadgang- and drug-related intimidation.Traditional approaches to the problemof victim and witness intimidationinclude:

● Warnings by the prosecutor and thedefense counsel to the defendant con-cerning obstruction of justice laws.

● High bail.

● Aggressive prosecution of reportedintimidation attempts.

● Entry of threatened individuals inthe Federal witness security program—typically in extreme cases involvingorganized crime (see “Federal Effortsto Combat Intimidation”).

The strict requirements for entry to theFederal witness security program, thehigh cost of providing lifelong servicesto witnesses and their families, and thepersonal sacrifices involved in partici-pating in the program have led a num-ber of prosecutors and police to seekshorter-term, less demanding, and

more economical approaches to localwitness security.

A traditional approach to the intimida-tion experienced by victims of domesticviolence is the use of civil restrainingorders and the provision of limitedcounselling and other services. How-ever, only three jurisdictions reliedsolely on these types of interventionsto combat gang- and drug-related victimand witness intimidation. The other 17jurisdictions made at least some use ofnontraditional responses discussed inthe section “Innovative approaches,”page 6.

The role of victim servicesprograms

Almost all jurisdictions provided somesupport services for victims and wit-nesses through the prosecutor’s officeor another local government agency.Most of these programs were foundedin the 1970’s and 1980’s in responseto increased concern for victims’rights, the Federal Victim and WitnessProtection Act of 1982, American BarAssociation recommendations regard-ing victim services, and the Federal

without the witness’s knowledge orconsent in an effort to control thewitness’s testimony.

There was no consensus among the in-dividuals interviewed about which ofthe four principal types of intimidatorswas most frequently involved in victimand witness intimidation. They didagree that, in smaller jurisdictions anddomestic violence cases, the intimida-tor was most likely to be the defen-dant. However, if victim and witnessintimidation is known to be aggres-sively prosecuted in a given jurisdic-tion, then the primary actors oftenbecome the gang, family, or friends ofthe defendant.

In general, defendants having asophisticated understanding of thecriminal justice system are much lesswilling to engage in any direct intimi-dation attempts. This is particularlytrue where the defendant is in custodyprior to trial. One prosecutor in Wash-ington, D.C. reported success in dis-covering victim and witness intimidationby executing search warrants in prisonwhen defendants were arranging an in-timidation scheme through written cor-respondence with family or gangmembers on the outside.

In gang cases, intimidation is rarelycarried out by the defendant himself;other gang members take on thisresponsibility. Gangs may be ruthlessin their self-protection: sometimes theincarcerated gang member himselfmay be seen as a potential threat to thegang and targeted for intimidation orexecution.

Traditional police andprosecutor strategies

Prosecutors observed that whenoffenders discover that intimidation

Timing of Intimidation

rosecutors and police agreed that, ingeneral, the most dangerous time for a vic-tim or witness is between arrest and trial.The long trial delays experienced in most ju-risdictions allow ample opportunity for in-timidation. The second most dangerousperiod for victims and witnesses is during thetrial itself. Very few intimidation attempts aremade at the scene of the crime (althoughviolent crime is in itself intimidating) or at thetime of arrest. However, in cases involvingcommunitywide intimidation, intimidationbegins the moment the victim or witness isaware that the crime is gang- or drug-related.

P

6


Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (VOCA).These initiatives, taken together,prompted a number of States to adoptvictims’ “Bill of Rights” legislation,which, in many States, mandated theprovision of specific services to victimsand, in some cases, provided for limitedcompensation for medical expensesand other damages resulting from thecrime.10 The degree of protection andservices these programs offer to victimsand witnesses varies widely from Stateto State, and even among prosecutoroffices within the same State.

Currently, victim services programs orunits in prosecutor offices provide a

logical base for the extension of servicesto victims of gang-related intimidation.As a result, prosecutors often turn tovictim services staff for assistance.However, few programs are currentlyorganized or funded to coordinate thetemporary relocation, financial support,job and welfare services, and communityoutreach programs needed by thesevictims and witnesses. The result isthat most victim services programslack the resources to address victimand witness intimidation, especiallycommunitywide intimidation.

In a majority of jurisdictions, victimservices programs provide assistanceto victims of domestic violence, rape,and violent crime, and, to a lesserdegree, to survivors of homicides. It isin relation to serving the victims ofviolent crime and homicide survivorsthat victim services agencies havebecome exposed to the increasingproblem of gang and drug crime-related intimidation.

A few programs have begun usingVOCA funds, State victim aid funds,private grant monies, and additionalfunding from local government sourcesto piece together services to assistprosecutors in retaining intimidatedwitnesses and combat communitywideintimidation (see “Family BereavementCenter”).

Other programs provide additionalservices to gang-intimidated victimsand witnesses without additional fund-ing. In such cases little institutionalsupport may exist for these programs’work, and the existence of the servicesmay depend on one person’s continuedinvolvement. For example, one victimservices director reported spendingweekends caring voluntarily for thechild of one witness—a drug abuser—and wearing a beeper so that she was

constantly in touch with her otherclients.

More typical, however, were the con-cerns expressed by overworked advo-cates in one large urban jurisdictionthat many more intimidated victimsand witnesses were in need of protec-tion than could be helped and thatlimited funding prevented any out-reach efforts to reassure intimidatedcommunities. In particular, the advo-cates cited a need for outreach andintimidation protection for the Asiancommunity, the elderly, and illegalimmigrants.

Innovative approaches

In the absence of programs or proto-cols to guide the protection of victimsand witnesses from gang-relatedintimidation, prosecutors and lawenforcement have taken five principalad hoc steps to provide protection inviolent crime and gang-related cases:

● Emergency relocation and support.

● Longer-term relocation, sometimesinvolving interagency cooperation tomove threatened witnesses or victimsin public housing to new areas.

● Pretrial and courtroom securitymeasures.

● Protective custody for victims andwitnesses who are in prison.

● Community outreach.

Emergency relocation andsupport. While funding for housingand food for intimidated victims andwitnesses is scarce, most prosecutorshave access to some money for emer-gency and longer-term relocation, ifthe intimidation is sufficiently severeand the witness’s testimony is essen-tial to winning the case. Some pros-

IFederal Efforts toCombat Intimidationn the late 1960’s, the U.S. Depart-

ment of Justice recognized that victim andwitness intimidation had become a seriousimpediment to obtaining testimony in orga-nized crime cases.8 In response, Congressenacted the Organized Crime Control Act of1970, laying the basis for the Federal witnesssecurity program that operates today underthe Witness Security Reform Act of 1984. In1982, the Victim and Witness Protection Actexpanded Federal laws regarding witness se-curity and victim services by establishing sig-nificant penalties for witness tampering,intimidation, and harassment; providing forcivil restraining orders; authorizing restitutionfor crime victims; and outlining Federalguidelines for the fair treatment of victimsand witnesses.9

The Federal Witness Security Program cur-rently provides comprehensive protective ser-vices—including new identities, relocation,employment assistance, and protective cus-tody (for incarcerated witnesses)—to wit-nesses in Federal cases involving organizedcrime, racketeering, drug trafficking, andother serious felonies, as well as to someState-level witnesses in similar types of cases.

7


ecution offices were much more so-phisticated and organized about theseefforts than others. Several jurisdic-tions relied on the fact that victimsand witnesses with jobs or strong fam-ily support systems could often beplaced with relatives or friends, ormoved out of State for short periods atlimited cost to the prosecutor. By con-trast, one prosecutor uses a highly or-ganized emergency and longer-termrelocation program administered bythe victim services unit, with theprosecutor’s office bearing only admin-istrative costs of the program and Stateand Federal agencies paying $600,000in annual relocation costs.

Emergency relocation needs are mostfrequently met by housing intimidatedwitnesses and their families in securehotels or motels. Witnesses are oftenregistered under false names, and pay-ment is not made directly by theprosecutor’s office or other easily iden-tifiable government agencies. Becausethe cost of this sort of emergency relo-cation accumulates rapidly, prosecu-tors reported using hotels and motels

only in the most serious cases, whereimmediate relocation was essential.

Longer-term relocation. In manycases, a longer-term, more independentrelocation is needed following emer-gency relocation. Prosecutors and po-lice reported working closely with thelocal public housing authorities to:

● Relocate victims and witnessesswiftly from one public housing devel-opment into another.

● Place witnesses from public housingin private, subsidized housing.

● Qualify poorly housed witnesses forsome form of housing assistance.

In each of these instances, police andprosecutors sought housing that was asafe distance from the threat; in somecases, housing resources in othercities, counties, or States were used.

Some respondents had worked with theU.S. Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment (HUD) to secure Section 8certification for intimidated victims andwitnesses. Section 8 certification quali-fies low-income families to receivevouchers to subsidize private housingcosts, in lieu of placement in publichousing. Police and prosecutors consid-ered placement in subsidized privatehousing to be more secure in somecases than the relocation of intimidatedvictims and witnesses within the publichousing system, because gang membersand drug dealers are usually reluctantto enter the types of middle-class neigh-borhoods in which Section 8 units aretypically located. Although some juris-dictions are able to take advantage ofthese outside resources, many jurisdic-tions rely exclusively on theprosecutor’s office for funding emer-gency and longer-term relocation, andothers are unaware of any State or Fed-

eral funding for witness protection andrelocation.

In addition to housing and some finan-cial support (such as a food allowance,money for transportation, or anythingelse essential for the witness and hisor her family), emergency and longer-term relocation usually involves somelevel of heightened police protection.None of the jurisdictions contactedwas able to fund constant police pro-tection for an intimidated victim orwitness, but most reported that theyhad some arrangement with law en-forcement for checking on the victimor witness several times a day or forproviding the victim or witness with abeeper or special contact number toensure rapid police response. Pros-ecutors and police administrators em-phasized that if the relocation isgenuinely confidential, there shouldbe no need for additional police pro-tection; it is only when the new ad-dress of the victim or witness isdisclosed that there is any danger.

Differing opinions on relocation. Dif-ferent jurisdictions appeared to havedifferent needs in terms of witness re-location. In some jurisdictions pros-ecutors emphasized that entrenched,national gangs made it essential toprovide witnesses with permanent re-location services. However, manyprosecutors noted that the lives of gangmembers were so insular that simplymoving a victim or witness to anotherbuilding or housing complex in thesame neighborhood would often pro-vide sufficient protection (see “D.C.Emphasis on Short-Term Relocation”).

By contrast, prosecutors in Los Ange-les emphasized that anything less thana permanent, long-term witness reloca-tion program would be irresponsible intheir jurisdiction. Los Angeles pros-

TFamily BereavementCenterhe Family Bereavement Center in

Baltimore, supported by a VOCA grant, pro-vides victim assistance and counselling forfamily members of homicide victims, manyof whom are residents of neighborhoodsdominated by local gangs and out-of-Statedrug dealers. Graduates of the programhave recently organized a civic group tocombat violence in their communities. TheFamily Bereavement Center and programslike it address witness security by fosteringtrust and communication between victim-ized community residents and theprosecutor’s office, thereby decreasing theimpact of communitywide intimidation.

8


ecutors gave numerous examples ofwitnesses who were killed after leavingwitness security programs and return-ing to their old neighborhoods.

Thus, when designing a relocation pro-gram for intimidated witnesses, pros-ecutors considered the type of gangthreat faced by witnesses. Permanentrelocation—although always prefer-

noted that her clients were afraid touse public transportation when travel-ing to the courthouse. In extremecases, the witness may attend courtunder guard.

● Use of metal detectors and coveredwindows to protect victims andwitnesses.

● Video cameras taping people com-ing into the courtroom to discouragegang attendance at trials. Gang mem-bers who are on probation want toavoid documentary evidence of theirassociation with known gang mem-bers—typically a violation of probationconditions that could land them in jail.

Another innovative courtroom ap-proach was the formation of commu-nity support groups for victims andwitnesses who wished to testify. Thesupport group attends the trial so thatthe witness sees friendly as well asthreatening faces in the audience. Avariation on this approach was to inter-view and bring in large numbers ofwitnesses from a community to tes-tify—one prosecutor brought 100grand jury witnesses into the court-room in a case against drug gangs op-erating in a housing project. Despitethe amount of work involved for thepolice and prosecutors, this approachhad the dual advantage of providingincreased security for the witnessesand building community solidarity.Following another approach, a policeinspector reported scheduling the an-nual visit to court of a uniformed po-lice cadet class to coincide with a trialin which witnesses had already beenintimidated by a strong gang presencein the courtroom.

Several jurisdictions expressed inter-est in finding legal ways to shield thevictims’ or witnesses’ identities and

able—may not be essential in jurisdic-tions where gangs are loosely orga-nized, small, and poorly established.However, in jurisdictions where gangsare entrenched in communities—areaswhere several generations may haveparticipated in gang activity, or wherenational, highly organized gangs domi-nate—permanent relocation of threat-ened witnesses is essential to ensuresafety.

Los Angeles prosecutors point out thatpermanent relocation is not a long-term commitment by the prosecutor orpolice to support witnesses financially,but rather an agreement to establishthem in a secure environment wherethey are expected to provide for theirown support. Of course, should a fur-ther threat to the witness arise, thepolice or prosecutor has a responsibil-ity to re-establish the person in a safelocation.

Judicial policies that assign a high pri-ority to the expeditious resolution ofcases involving intimidated victimsand witnesses can further reduce thecost of providing all types of emer-gency and longer-term relocation.

Pretrial and courtroom securitymeasures. Prosecutors and policedescribed an array of small safetymeasures that have been undertakento decrease victim and witness intimi-dation in and around the courtroom:

● Provision of a separate waiting areafor victims and witnesses—a relativelycommon practice. In some jurisdic-tions, however, the witness waitingarea and the defendant and publicwaiting areas are separate but not se-cure—simply a room or area set apart.

● Safe transportation to and fromcourt. One victim services advocate

PD.C. Emphasis on Short-Term Relocationrosecutors, police administrators,

and victim service professionals in Washing-ton, D.C., emphasized that short-term relo-cation—a few days to a year—has beenadequate to protect most intimidated victimsand witnesses, due to the small size andloose organization of most gangs or“crews” in their jurisdiction. In their experi-ence, long-term relocation, like that pro-vided by the Federal witness securityprogram, is not necessary in most local in-timidation cases. They estimated that inmost of their cases relocation for between 4months and 1 year was enough to carry thevictim or witness past the critical stages oftrial preparation and testimony. In the Dis-trict of Columbia, witnesses have been ableto return to their communities without retri-bution after the conclusion of a trial.

Police and prosecutors in Washington, D.C.,noted practical advantages to short-term re-location. Victims and witnesses are rarelywilling to sever all ties with their community,abandon jobs, and never again see oldfriends and relatives. When asked to makethese sacrifices, many witnesses may nothelp the prosecutor because:

• They decided that cooperation is tooonerous.

• They agree initially to relocate but then en-danger themselves by recontacting friends orrelatives from their old community. As oneprosecutor observed, “people want to besafe in their own homes, not have to move.”

9


addresses up to or throughout their ap-pearance in court. To prevent would-be intimidators from figuring out whothe key witnesses were, some prosecu-tors tried to reinterview key witnessesin the company of large numbers ofless important or even uncooperativewitnesses. One jurisdiction used re-mote testimony on closed circuit tele-vision to interview witnesses. Someprosecutors found videotaped grandjury testimony and audiotaped witnessstatements to be particularly useful fordiscouraging witnesses on the standfrom altering their testimony oncetheir identities were about to becomeknown.

Protective custody for victims andwitnesses in prison.11 While witnessesin government cases constitute only asmall part of the Federal and localprison population, prosecutors consid-ered protective custody a valuable toolfor assisting incarcerated victims andwitnesses. The cooperation of incar-cerated witnesses is often essential ingang- and drug-related cases. Oneprosecutor favored the use of incarcer-ated witnesses in gang trials ratherthan witnesses at liberty because itrendered useless—and therefore mini-mized—gang efforts to intimidatemembers of the community who wereinnocent of any criminal offense. Mostprosecutors tried either to arrangesome form of protective custody for in-carcerated witnesses or to transferthem to a facility where the defendantwas not housed. Prosecutors also ar-ranged for witnesses to be transportedto court separately from the defendant.In New York City, however, a gangprosecutor noted that procedures usedto place inmates in protective custody,or separate one inmate from another,may draw attention to the fact that in-mates are witnesses and, therefore, en-

danger them more than if they were al-lowed to maintain anonymity in thegeneral prison population.

Community outreach. Prosecutors hadattempted to collaborate with a broadrange of law enforcement, social ser-vice, and community groups in their ef-forts to combat victim and witnessintimidation. Jurisdictions had under-taken cooperative efforts with localhousing authorities, the U.S. Depart-ment of Housing and Urban Develop-ment (HUD), the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation (FBI), various U.S. Attor-ney Offices, the Federal Bureau ofPrisons, jails in neighboring counties,shelters, domestic violence groups, theTravellers AID Society, the YMCA,rape crisis groups, and homicide survi-vor groups.

Several prosecutors had begun limitedcommunity outreach efforts, includingpublic speaking engagements aimed ateducating teachers, guidance counse-lors, community groups, and elderlyAsian immigrants about victim and wit-ness intimidation. One prosecutor hadappeared on a Spanish-language radiostation to discuss cases in which his of-fice was seeking witnesses.

Emerging models andstrategies

A few jurisdictions have begun to buildon the traditional practices, victim ser-vices, and ad hoc strategies describedabove to construct comprehensive pro-grams for the security of victims andwitnesses. These programs formalizerelationships between the prosecutor’soffice and law enforcement agencies,community groups, and social serviceagencies. In addition, the programsspecify procedures for determiningwhich victims and witnesses will re-ceive a given level of security and ser-

vices, and what the funding sourcefor these services will be. Compre-hensive strategies also emphasize in-timidation prevention, throughcommunity policing and communityoutreach, education, and empower-ment.

Key elements of witness security andassistance12 build on many of the ar-eas discussed earlier, such as basicvictim services, access to emergencyand long-term relocation, and com-munity outreach. Not only do theybuild on existing strategies, but theycall for protocols for interagency co-operation and enhanced legislation.A special emphasis is placed onintimidation prevention and controlthrough cooperation among lawenforcement, prosecutors, and thejudiciary.

The following efforts at developing acomprehensive plan are at an earlystage of development and have notbeen evaluated; the next pages high-light the major aspects of emergingstrategies for witness security andassistance.

Protocols for interagency cooperation.Current witness protection programsemphasize the value of formalized,cooperative relationships among theprosecutor’s office, local enforcementagencies, social service agencies (es-pecially those concerned with hous-ing and public assistance), the FBI,Federal agencies such as HUD, andlocal counselling groups and shelters.The specific agencies with whichagreements are needed may vary fromjurisdiction to jurisdiction, but theagreements should identify the ser-vices to be provided, the agenciesthat will bear the cost, and the allow-able expenses or services. The agree-ments should be used to speed and

10


coordinate emergency services to vic-tims and witnesses, and to place abroader array of resources at the dis-posal of the prosecutor.

Enhanced basic victim services. Allprosecutors recognized the value ofbasic victim services (such as provid-ing emergency short-term relocationassistance) for allaying many of thenonspecific fears of victims and wit-nesses. Ideally services available to allwitnesses who need them should in-clude the following:

● Emergency and longer-termcounselling.

● Assistance with victim compensation,where appropriate.

● Information concerning the criminaljustice system.

● Notification concerning importanttrial dates and the outcome of trials.

● A specific contact person whocan assist the victim or witness withintimidation concerns throughout thetrial and relocation.

● A 24-hour emergency contactnumber.

One additional service recommendedby working group participants was thefunding of secure debriefing rooms, re-mote from police stations and prosecu-tor offices, for victims and witnesseswho were not participating in tempo-rary relocation. Participants had usedhotel rooms and even boats as securelocations to interview intimidated vic-tims and witnesses.

Increased access to emergency andlonger-term relocation. Another needthat prosecutors recognized was theability to provide additional methodsfor swift, emergency, and longer-term

security for intimidated victims andwitnesses. Some jurisdictions reportedneeding to relocate witnesses only afew times a year, but others needed tomove victims and witnesses daily. Aneffective emergency and longer-termrelocation program would provide a se-cure residence, transportation to thenew site, some food money if needed,counselling, speedy access to socialservices, and enhanced police protec-tion. A long-term program might alsoassist witnesses in finding employ-ment. The prosecutor’s office shouldnot be considered under any obligationto provide services beyond those in thesecurity agreement, except where a re-newed or continued threat requires ad-ditional assistance. All prosecutorsfunding relocation of witnesses empha-sized the need to have a clear agree-ment concerning what services are tobe provided and a limit to the length oftime that the government is respon-sible for funding living expenses andother witness needs.

Enhanced legislation. A recent ordi-nance in the District of Columbia thatincreased penalties for obstruction ofjustice was considered essential tobetter victim and witness security inthat jurisdiction. Many prosecutorsand police across the country sug-gested that setting higher penalties forintimidation, requiring that penaltiesbe served consecutively, and exactinghigher bail and tighter bond restric-tions would be useful. Another con-cern of prosecutors and police was thelegal barriers inhibiting the exchangeof information among criminal justiceagencies concerning the records andgang affiliations of minors. Althoughno consensus was reached concerningthe best approach to this difficult pri-vacy issue, study participants agreedthat, as gangs used younger and

younger children to facilitate drugsales and even executions, somemethod of tracking juvenile gang of-fenders was essential.

Community empowerment. In an-other approach to empowering commu-nities, prosecutors and police educatetenant and community groups aboutcivil remedies they can use to regaincontrol of their neighborhoods, andthey provide contacts with pro bonolegal workers who might assist with theinjunctive relief process. Prosecutorsand police have also assisted sometenant groups to establish “gatechecks” at housing projects with gangand drug problems. By providing anadded measure of security, the gatecheck volunteers have been expectedto “keep the good tenants in” and dis-courage admission to outside gangmembers who had no family or con-tacts in the building.

Community awareness. Almost everyrespondent emphasized the need forbetter public relations for victim andwitness security and assistance efforts.Many respondents believed that, de-spite the seriousness of the victim andwitnesses intimidation problem, publicperceptions of the dangers involved intestifying were exaggerated. For thisreason, both prosecutors and victimservices counselors felt that once aworkable model for victim and witnessprotection was in place, it would becritical to take the program to gang-dominated communities and informlaw-abiding residents of the servicesand safeguards available to them. Po-lice and prosecutors from all parts ofthe country emphasized the need forspecial public relations efforts (com-bined with community outreach) togive Asian and illegal immigrant com-munities information about the Ameri-

11


can criminal justice system and aboutimmigration law. It is important, how-ever, that police and prosecutors notpromise a level of safety that they arenot absolutely sure they can provide.In some jurisdictions, injured victimsand witnesses, or the families of mur-dered victims and witnesses, have suc-cessfully brought civil lawsuits againstprosecutors and police, alleging thatwitnesses were inadequately warnedabout the danger of testifying. Largedamages have been awarded in somecases.13

Intimidation prevention andcontrol

Prosecutors, law enforcement, and thejudiciary have critical roles to play inany program to prevent victim and wit-ness intimidation. Law enforcementofficers are better positioned thanprosecutors to foresee and preventintimidation at the street level. Lawenforcement officers can inform pros-ecutors about repeat offenders andpotential intimidators, alert prosecu-tors to potential witnesses who are be-ing intimidated, and reduce gangincome and intimidation by disruptinggang operations with intensive policingtactics. In one small jurisdiction, com-munity police officers found it effec-tive to visit the families of potentialintimidators and explain the laws con-cerning obstruction of justice. In an-other community where intimidationwas severe, police officers were able toreassure tenants in gang-dominatedhousing projects by establishing fieldprecincts in empty apartments or storefronts, or by bringing in a mobile pre-cinct, in order to decrease responsetime. In one jurisdiction where a com-prehensive witness security programwas being established by theprosecutor’s office, police reported

approximately 200 violent, gang- anddrug-related crimes that had not beenpresented to the prosecutor due towitness intimidation. With better com-munication between police and pros-ecutors, these witnesses might havebeen persuaded to enter the new wit-ness security program and testify.

Community outreach. Communityoutreach is critical to establishing co-operative relationships with potentialwitnesses and preventing intimidation.Both prosecutors and police need tofind ways to build confidence in gang-dominated communities that witnesssecurity is available (see “CommunityPolicing and Community-Based Pros-ecution”). A number of outreach strat-egies were considered promising:

● Community policing.

● Assigning prosecutors to specificcommunities or police units.

● Vertical prosecution of cases involv-ing gangs or victim intimidation (i.e.,one prosecutor or team of prosecutorsassumes responsibility for a case fromstart to finish).

● Aggressive gang suppression.

● Matching the cultural knowledgeand linguistic skills of law enforce-ment and outreach personnel to thatof the neighborhoods they serve.

Finding outreach personnel who cancommunicate with intimidated victimsand witnesses in their own language isespecially important in the case of re-cent immigrants and non-Englishspeaking residents, who may not beaware of their rights and the servicesavailable to them.

Cooperation with the judiciary. In ju-risdictions where the judiciary takes

Community Policingand Community-BasedProsecutionne of the most important elements

of intimidation prevention is community po-licing, and when possible, community-basedprosecution. The advantages of communitypolicing and prosecution are many:

• Prosecutors and police are able to buildlong-term relationships with citizen and ten-ant groups, and these contacts are likely tolead to witness cooperation.

• A consistent police and prosecutor pres-ence helps to build a greater sense of trustand accountability between the communityand the criminal justice system.

• Community prosecutors and police aremore likely to see links between relatedcases and to detect new crime trends beforethey have the opportunity to develop fully.

• Community prosecutors and police arebetter attuned to the needs of victims andwitnesses from their jurisdictions, and canwork with victim services representativesto design programs that respond to localconcerns.

O

threats against victims and witnessesseriously, prosecutors were much moreconfident in their ability to deter in-timidation and secure witness testi-mony. Prosecutors and police sugges-ted that gang-related victim and wit-ness intimidation could be reduced incourt when judges were knowledgeableabout gang characteristics and werewilling to exclude members who woreidentifying colors or made threateninghand signs. In some jurisdictions, ad-ditional judicial resources were madeavailable to expedite cases where vic-tim and witness intimidation had be-come a factor. Prompt disposition ofcases involving victim and witness in-timidation not only reduces the oppor-tunity for intimidation before and

12


during trial, but also conserves witnessprotection resources, allowing morevictims and witnesses to benefit fromshort-term relocation or security services.

Additional considerations

In establishing a comprehensive wit-ness security and assistance program,participants in this project offered spe-cific ideas that could be considered inplanning and implementing such astrategy:

● Find a highly qualified leader. Aneffective witness security and assis-tance program needs an energetic,dedicated leader knowledgeable aboutlegal issues, the local gang problem,victim rights, and the needs of con-cerned intimidated communities.Effective leaders can be found in anyagency, and the program can behoused with the leader in the policedepartment, in the prosecutor’s office, orwith existing victim services programs.

● Have the program protocolsendorsed by public officials at thehighest level. In order to secure thegreatest possible cooperation frompublic and private agencies, the mis-sion of the witness security programand the protocols for interagency coop-eration should be presented to thehighest ranking local officials for theirpublic endorsement and support.These officials may include the mayor,the city council or other governingbody, the administrative judge, thedistrict attorney, the police commis-sioner or chief, the heads of local so-cial services and public housing, thesuperintendent of schools, churchleaders in the target communities, andany other community leaders whosecooperation may be important.

● Design a manual to meet the needsof prosecutors, police, and victimservices workers. Once cooperativeagreements and procedures are devel-oped to implement a new witness secu-rity plan, it is important that theinformation be made available in asimple, clear format for every indi-vidual and group that may need to usethe program. Sample court or adminis-trative papers could be provided toprosecutors seeking funding authoriza-tion for protective services; resourceand contact lists should be easily ac-cessible.

● Build an evaluation design into anynew program. While the effectivenessof victim and witness intimidation pre-vention efforts is not easily assessedby traditional quantitative researchmethods, it is essential to identify whatmeasures may be meaningful barom-eters of program impact. Some workinggroup participants suggested that sur-veys of attitudes in gang-dominatedcommunities might be used as a mea-sure of program success. Otherapproaches may be to monitor pros-ecutor and police perceptions of theproblem and to ask participants in thewitness security program to commenton the program’s effectiveness. What-ever tools are used, evaluative data arecritical to securing continued or in-creased funding and to determininghow the program needs to be improved.

● Make use of established gang sup-pression techniques. Gang-relatedvictim and witness intimidation cannotbe addressed effectively in isolationfrom the larger issue of gang suppres-sion. Police and prosecutors who spe-cialize in gang crimes offered thefollowing suggestions for dealing withgangs:

● Become familiar with the mostcurrent literature on gangs andgang suppression.14

● Make technology an ally. Gangprosecutors recommended the useof gang-tracking software and thecomputerized identification of bulletsinvolved in gang incidents, so thatcrimes using the same guns may belinked, even when those crimesmay have occurred outside theboundaries of a given neighborhoodor community policing district.15

● Target top gang members andrepeat offenders for aggressiveprosecution. Gang prosecutorssuggested that the aggressive pros-ecution of all crimes committed bytop gang members and by repeatoffenders linked with gangs helpedto disrupt gang activity in intimi-dated neighborhoods.

● Maximize the number of defen-dants indicted in each gang case.Prosecutors in one of the toughesturban jurisdictions advised that in-dicting large numbers of defen-dants in each gang case benefitsthe community by disrupting gangactivity and drug sales on thestreet. Community-wide intimidationis reduced because more indictedor incarcerated, gang-affiliatedwitnesses are available to testify,in lieu of potentially vulnerablecommunity residents.

● Focus on truancy reduction as ameans of controlling juvenilegang participation. Gang special-ists noted the connection betweentruancy and gang involvement insome neighborhoods. Active lawenforcement support for truancyreduction programs may reduceintimidation.

13


● Seek long-term, renewablefunding sources to support witnessprotection programs. Individuals con-tacted for this project advised thatshort-term or nonrenewable fundinghad closed a number of promisingcriminal justice initiatives in their ju-risdictions. Where adequate fundingis not available from local sources,working group participants suggestedexploring possibilities for funding fromlocal or Federal drug-related assetforfeiture programs; contacting the lo-cal FBI office for loans of equipmentor other resources; cooperating withFederal agencies, such as HUD andthe U.S. Marshal’s Service; establish-ing cooperative agreements with localagencies and programs; and applyingfor free technical assistance fromagencies such as the National VictimCenter (NVC) in Arlington, Virginia(703) 276-2880.

Gang-related victim and witness in-timidation is a serious, growing con-cern for prosecutors, judges, police,and victim services workers, but, asthis study has demonstrated, innova-tive and proactive interventions arebeginning to emerge.

Notes

1. Because none of the recently-estab-lished practices discussed by the in-terview respondents and workinggroup members has been formallyevaluated, these practices are offeredonly as examples of current practice.Once these practices have been in op-eration for a longer period, furtherstudy can determine their effective-ness. The following 20 jurisdictionswere contacted for this project. Thenumber of individuals interviewed ineach jurisdiction (either in person orby phone) is indicated in parentheses:

Baltimore City, Maryland (1); Boroughof Manhattan, New York (1); Boroughof Queens, New York (4); Bridgeport,Connecticut (1); Brockton, Massachu-setts (1); Charlotte, North Carolina (1);Chicago, Illinois (3); Cleveland, Ohio(1); Dade County, Florida (1); Detroit,Michigan (1); Houston, Texas (2); Kan-sas City, Missouri (2); Los Angeles,California (2); Missoula, Montana (1);Montgomery County, Maryland (1);Oakland, California (1); Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania (1); Portland, Oregon (1);San Francisco, California (1); and theDistrict of Columbia (5).

2. Some research findings support theperceived connection between gangactivity and certain violent crimes,such as murder and aggravated assaultin specific neighborhoods. See Com-prehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent,and Chronic Juvenile Offenders: Pro-gram Summary. Office of Juvenile Jus-tice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S.Department of Justice, June 1994, p. 31.

3. Although there is no recent researchto substantiate these estimates, a 1990study by the Victim Services Agencyin New York City concluded that 36percent of victims and witnesses stud-ied in the Bronx Criminal Court in1988 had been threatened; 57 percentof those who had not been threatenedfeared reprisals; and 71 percent of allrespondents said that they would feelthreatened if the defendants were outon bail. Davis, Robert C., et al. Vic-tim/Witness Intimidation in the BronxCourts: How Common Is It, and WhatAre Its Consequences? Unpublishedmonograph, Victim Services Agency,June 1990.

4. The National Crime VictimizationSurvey reports that the percent of vic-tims of violent crimes who cite “fear ofreprisal” as the main factor in failing

to report crimes is small—3.8 percentfor violent crimes involving a strangerand 5.6 percent for violent crimes in-volving non-strangers. However, thesurvey does not include data on homi-cide witnesses. Criminal Victimizationin the United States, 1992. Bureau ofJustice Statistics, U.S. Department ofJustice, March 1994.

5. Stark, James and Howard W.Goldstein, The Rights of Crime Vic-tims. New York: Bantam and Ameri-can Civil Liberties Union, 1985.

6. Johnson, Claire, Barbara Webster,and Edward Connors, “ProsecutingGangs: A National Assessment,”Research in Brief, National Institute ofJustice, U.S. Department of Justice,February 1995. The study surveyed atotal of 192 prosecutors, 80 percent ofwhom said that gangs were a problemin their jurisdiction although the defi-nition of gang varied from State toState. Other related findings include:94 percent of local gangs in large ju-risdictions and 84 percent of gangs insmall jurisdictions committed violentcrimes and trafficked in drugs.

7. For related data, see HandgunCrime Victims, Special Report. Bureauof Justice Statistics, U.S. Departmentof Justice, July 1990.

8. Statement of Gerald Shur, SeniorAssociate Director, Office of Enforce-ment Operations, Criminal Division,before the Subcommittee on Crime andCriminal Justice, Committee on the Ju-diciary, U.S. House of Representa-tives, concerning witness intimidation,August 4, 1994.

9. The problem of victim and witnessintimidation was also highlighted bythe American Bar Association and theVictim Services Agency, New YorkCity, in the early 1980s. See, Ameri-

14


can Bar Association, Criminal JusticeSection. Reducing Victim/Witness In-timidation: A Package. Washington,D.C.: American Bar Association,1982; and, Connick, Elizabeth andRobert Davis, “Examining the problemof witness intimidation.” Judicature,66, 439-447, 1983.

10. Stark and Goldstein, The Rights ofCrime Victims.

11. A 1991 study of protective custodyin adult correctional facilities foundthat 5.6 percent of all U.S. prison in-mates were in some form of protectivecustody. Henderson, James D. Protec-tive Custody Management in AdultCorrectional Facilities. Washington,D.C.: National Institute of Corrections,1991.

12. The term “security and assistance”is preferable to “protection” becausethe phrase “witness protection” sug-gests a higher level of financial main-tenance and policy commitment thanis possible in most jurisdictions. Fur-thermore, the term “protection” maycreate unrealistic expectations on thepart of victims and witnesses, openingthe door to claims of civil liabilityagainst police departments, prosecutoroffices, or the city or county, shouldsuch efforts fail to protect the victim orwitness adequately.

13. While litigation is not common na-tionally, cases were reported in LosAngeles, California; Washington, D.C.;and Florida. See Carpenter v. City ofLos Angeles, 230 Cal. App. 3rd 923,1991, where the court awarded 1.2million dollars to a witness who wasnot warned that the defendant in a rob-bery case had contracted to have himkilled. The witness, Carpenter, wassubsequently wounded by the defen-dant, and the police officer who had

Kerry Murphy Healey, Ph.D., is aconsultant to the Law and PublicPolicy Area of Abt AssociatesInc., Cambridge, Massachusetts.

This report was supported by Research Appli-cations contract #OJP–94–C–007 from theNational Institute of Justice to Abt AssociatesInc. Findings and conclusions of the researchreported here are those of the authors and donot necessarily reflect the official position orpolicies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

NCJ 156555

The National Institute of Justice is acomponent of the Office of JusticePrograms, which also includes the Bureauof Justice Assistance, Bureau of JusticeStatistics, Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention, and the Office forVictims of Crime.

failed to warn Carpenter was fatallyshot by the defendant following hisown testimony in the case. See alsoWallace v. City of Los Angeles, 12 CALAPP 4th 1315, 1993, which estab-lished a duty to protect a witness en-listed to testify, even if the case islater declined, and awarded the plain-tiff $750,000 in damages.

14. Working group participants recom-mended the California District Attor-neys Association’s Gang ResourceGuide, available by calling (916) 443-2017; studies by Irving Spergel andRon Chance; and publications avail-able through the National CriminalJustice Reference Service (NCJRS),Rockville, Maryland, (800) 851-3420.For a discussion of gang suppressiontechniques, see Ehrensaft, Kenneth,Prosecutors Model, unpublished mono-graph prepared for the Office of Juve-nile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention, U.S. Department of Jus-tice, 1993.

15. Gang prosecutors recommendedthe use of gang member tracking software, the “Gang Tracking System,”developed by and available from theLos Angeles County Sheriff’s Depart-ment by calling (310) 603-3106.

15

R e s e a r c h i n A c t i o nThe Latest Criminal JusticeVideotape Series from NIJ:Research in Progress

Learn about the latest developments in criminal justiceresearch from prominent criminal justice experts.

Each 60-minute tape presents a well-known scholar discussing his or her current studies and how they relate toexisting criminal justice research and includes the lecturer’s responses to audience questions.

cine, Emory University: Understanding andPreventing Violence: A Public Health Perspective.

NCJ 152692—James Inciardi, Ph.D.,Director, Drug and Alcohol Center, Uni-versity of Delaware: A Corrections-BasedContinuum of Effective Drug Abuse Treatment.

NCJ 153270—Adele Harrell, Ph.D.,Director, Program on Law and Behavior,The Urban Institute: Intervening with High-Risk Youth: Preliminary Findings from theChildren-at-Risk Program.

NCJ 153271—Marvin Wolfgang, Ph.D.,Director, Legal Studies and Criminology,University of Pennsylvania: Crime in aBirth Cohort: A Replication in the People’sRepublic of China.

NCJ 153730—Lawrence W. Sherman,Ph.D., Chief Criminologist, IndianapolisPolice Department, Professor of Criminology,University of Maryland: Reducing Gun Violence:Community Policing Against Gun Crime.

NCJ 152235—Alfred Blumstein, Ph.D.,J. Erik Jonsson University Professor ofUrban Systems and Operations Research,H. John Heinz III School of PublicPolicy Management, Carnegie MellonUniversity: Youth Violence, Guns, and IllicitDrug Markets.

NCJ 152236—Peter W. Greenwood, Ph.D.,Director, Criminal Justice Research Pro-gram, The RAND Corporation: Three Strikes,You’re Out: Benefits and Costs of California’s NewMandatory-Sentencing Law.

NCJ 152237—Christian Pfeiffer, Ph.D.,Director of the Krimino–logischesForschungsinstitut Niedersachsen: Sen-tencing Policy and Crime Rates in ReunifiedGermany.

NCJ 152238—Arthur L. Kellerman,M.D., M.P.H., Director of the Center forInjury Control, School of Public Healthand Associate Professor in the Divisionof Emergency Medicine, School of Medi-

NCJ 153272—Cathy Spatz Widom,Ph.D., Professor, School of CriminalJustice, State University of NewYork—Albany: The Cycle of ViolenceRevisited Six Years Later.

NCJ 157273—Wesley Skogan, Ph.D.,Professor, Political Science and UrbanAffairs, Northwestern University: Com-munity Policing in Chicago: Fact or Fiction?

NCJ 153850—Scott H. Decker, Ph.D.,Professor and Chair, Department ofCriminal Justice and Criminology,University of Missouri–St. Louis, andSusan Pennell, Director, Criminal Jus-tice Research Unit, San Diego Associa-tion of Governments: Monitoring theIllegal Firearms Market.

NCJ 154277—Terrie Moffitt, Ph.D.,Professor, Department of Psychology,University of Wisconsin: Partner ViolenceAmong Adults.

✂

Qty. Presenter Name and NCJ Number Subtotal

Name

Address

City State ZIP Daytime phone ( )

___ Payment enclosed (U.S. dollars) ___ Deduct this item from my NCJRS Deposit Account, account no.

Charge my: ___ MasterCard ___VISA Account no.

Exp. Date ________________________ Signature

To order any of these tapes, please complete and return this form with your payment to the National Criminal Justice ReferenceService, P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849–6000. Individual titles are available for only $19 in the United States and$24 in Canada and other countries. Call 800–851–3420, or e-mail [email protected] if you have any questions.

Please send me the following tapes:

U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Justice ProgramsNational Institute of Justice

Washington, D.C. 20531____________________________

Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use $300

BULK RATEPOSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/NIJPermit No. G–91

Documents

Victim and Witness Intimidation