Witness Intimidation - An Examination of the Criminal Justice System's Response to the Problem

• NCJ Number: 82856
• Author(s): E Connick
• Date Published: 1982
• Length: 150 pages
• Grant Number(s): 2874
• Sponsoring Agency: US Dept of Justice; New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services; New York City Criminal Justice Coordinating Council
• Corporate Author: Victim Services
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

The criminal justice system's current response to witness intimidation is considered, and the effectiveness of this response is evaluated, followed by recommendations for improving this response.

Abstract

The study examined the criminal justice response to intimidation of witnesses in Brooklyn's Criminal, Supreme, and Family Courts. A total of 161 witnesses who had been threatened during their involvement in cases in the court were interviewed, along with 25 criminal justice officials. The threats received by subjects ranged from ominous looks of gestures, to rumors circulated around the neighborhood, to direct verbal and physical confrontations. Among threatened witnesses, 63 percent from Criminal Court, 68 percent from Supreme Court, and 46 percent from Family Court reported the threats to criminal justice officials. The primary response of criminal justice officials was to calm and reassure witnesses. Defendants were admonished by the judge in a significant number of the cases, and there was some evidence that defendants in cases involving witness intimidation received stiffer sentences. Witnesses were offered some form of protection in 4 percent of Criminal Court cases, 5 percent of Supreme Court cases, and 1 of 6 Family Court cases. Investigation of threats rarely occurred. While there are constraints on the resources that the criminal justice system can apply to the problem of witness intimidation, additional steps that are not excessively costly could be taken to counter the problem. The recommended measures are in four general areas; limiting defendants' opportunities to threaten witnesses, increasing official sanctions against witness intimidation, increasing protection for threatened witnesses, and providing witnesses with more assistance in coping with threats and cooperating with the court. Appended are details of study methodology, demographic and case characteristics of threatened witnesses, and the hypothetical cases administered to criminal justice officials. Six references are listed. (Author summary modified)