Question for msanthrope and other legal types

[DisgustipatedinCA]

The law is far from my area of expertise, so I have a question for attorneys or anyone else who may be able to answer.

I believe that courts have long deferred to the word of police officers over the word of citizens. If a citizen goes to court and says that "A" happened, and an involved police officer says no, actually "B" happened, absent any other evidence, the court will believe the police officer over the citizen.

If this is the case--that courts will believe a cop before they'll believe "man on the street", is there any chance that this will change over time? We all know lots of stories about cops lying, planting guns, planting evidence, making claims that are countered by video evidence, making claims about unarmed men reaching for waistbands, and so on. In some of those cases, it can be proven that the police are lying.

So my question is this: is there some way to establish a legal precedent that police officers shouldn't necessarily be taken at their word? If there is a way to establish this precedent, is this happening? Are police being challenged as possibly dishonest in courtrooms, not for something they themselves have done, but rather for the body of lies police have told in aggregate? In my opinion, not all police are trustworthy, and in my further opinion, their word should not always be taken as gospel.

thanks

[former9thward]

1. If it is just the police verses a defendant

courts will generally believe the police because the court will think the police have no reason to lie while it may be in the self interest of the defendant to lie. That being said judges, especially at the local level, do have a relationship with prosecutors and police. They see each other every day and engage each other in friendly banter as any co-workers do.

But most judges are not going to blindly take the word of a cop. Judges are not idiots, they can often tell when someone, cop or not, is lying. Once you have been caught in a lie your word is mud from then on. For that very reason police are taught in the academy to tell the truth and don't worry about the outcome of the case. That is the prosecutor's problem not theirs.

I was a prosecutor for a major city for several years and I worked with police witnesses everyday. I never knew any of them to deliberately lie. There was just no point to it. You want your word to be trusted over the long run. Damn what happens in any given case.

[cheyanne]

4. You are assuming that the prosecutor is impartial and so will not trust that cop again.

However, the prosecutors and cops rely on each other. In Ferguson we see a case where the cops and prosecutors and judges all knew that there were phony charges, but no one blew the whistle. The blog Simple Justice examines some of these cases and notes that prosecutors are rarely punished when the courts find they have violated a defendant's rights.

[notadmblnd]

28. Prosecutors want convictions, they don't care one iota about guilt.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

5. Thanks for your perspective. I appreciate the reply. nt

[jberryhill]

35. The defendant rarely testifies

I haven't looked at the rest of the thread, but the issue is not that there is some rule that "cops are more credible".

In many instances, where it boils down to what transpired between a cop and a defendant, the only one testifying to anything is going to be the cop, because of the obvious folly of a criminal defendant testifying to anything.

[pinboy3niner]

36. And so the question remains, how does "the court" treat cop testimony?

It may be trial by judge or by jury so that makes a difference. But your insight as a practitioner may be helpful.

Even though I still think you're more like the 'Call Saul' guy.

[jberryhill]

38. Just like any other testimony

However, the set of "random people who witnessed stuff" will, in general, include more people with skeletons in their closet which can be used to impeach them than the set of "cops".

Additionally, the set of "random people who witnessed stuff" is not a random cross section of the general population, and is a small set, because "people who witnessed stuff" is a larger set and includes the relatively larger subset of "friends of the defendant who witnessed stuff". That subset is biased... "So, you wouldn't want to see the defendant go to jail, now would you?"

[pinboy3niner]

40. What's the difference between a judge and a jury trial?

Where a jury may be naive about testimony, a judge will have a better handle on what's going on. But the judge himself or herself may have a predisposition toward "law and order" or toward defendants. What's your experience with trials by judge?

[geek tragedy]

2. finders of fact are supposed to judge the credibility of witnesses before them without resorting

to a "cop good, defendant bad" type of mentality. Whether it's a judge or a jury, they're not supposed to treat police testimony as inherently more truthful, reliable or credible than those of regular citizens.

So, there's no rule of law that can be enacted really--what you argue in favor of is already the rule.

Is that rule followed? Of course not.

How do we ensure it gets followed more regularly? Beats me.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

6. If this is the case, I've been mistaken all along.

I've been under the impression that as a matter of course, courts will believe police over individual citizens--all other things being equal. But you're saying that what I want is already in place, but just not being followed. Interesting. Thanks for taking the time to reply.

[Major Nikon]

3. If you go to court and say you didn't run that stop sign

...but a cop said you did, you are going to lose every time.

The reason is because you have a vested interest in lying while the cop does not. So usually there's more to it than just your word against a cop. Trying to establish a legal precedent that because cops sometimes lie they can't be trusted is probably not going to get you very far.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

7. But don't the police have a vested interest in lying sometimes?

If they're being pressured to get better arrest numbers, more speeding tickets, getting themselves out of trouble when they shoot someone they shouldn't have shot, whatever the case may be, don't they also have a vested interest in lying on occasion? If they don't have a vested interest in lying, then why do they lie on occasion? And how does this square with the poster just above (at root level) who says that courts are supposed to believe police and citizens equally (even though they don't do that in practice)?

[Man from Pickens]

34. Police lie systematically

Their salaries and careers are dependent on putting people away. Whether they do so justly or not is of no importance to a great many of them.

[Warren DeMontague]

8. Some people have proposed mandatory cameras on all police, that can't be shut off.

Some LEOs support the idea, because it provides fairly solid evidence for their version of things, assuming they're telling the truth.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

10. That seems to cut both ways.

One would guess that the law enforcement officers who support the idea of body cameras are among the group of honest police--a little oversimplified, but you get the idea. On the other hand, the fact that there's clamoring for having cops wear body cameras in the first place suggests that police as a whole are not entirely trustworthy.

[Warren DeMontague]

22. I think recent events have pointed up the reasons why communities might want them

pretty dramatically.

[pinboy3niner]

9. My brother once got a jury to acquit a minority defendant by questioning the cop's testimony

He was on the jury, which was ready to convict. But the judge allowed jurors to each submit a question that they would like asked of a witness. The judge recalled a few witnesses and put selected questions to them. My brother's question for the arresting cop completely unravelled the cop's previous testimony and the jury did a 180 and voted to acquit.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

11. That's awesome. I assume it's also pretty rare.

Good for your brother. I'll bet that particular minority defendant was happy your brother didn't blow off jury duty, as so many people tend to do.

[pinboy3niner]

14. The defendant never knew

The judge selected only a few of the questions, and asked them from the bench without identifying which jurors submitted them.

I think what is unusual is for a judge to take questions from jurors like that. In this case it was lucky that my brother recognized that the cop's original testimony didn't fully explain what my brother saw as a crucial issue regarding the arrest (and he was shocked that the defense didn't ask the question).

I have seen your OP question addressed in voir dire, when both the prosecution and defense examine prospective jurors. They have a limited number of questions to try to get a "read" on a juror. What each side wants is not an impartial juror, but one who is likely to be favorable to their side. So the question of how a person weighs witness testimony sometimes does come up.

The only time I personally went through voir dire I was challenged (excluded) by the D.A., and it was almost certainly because my answers indicated I would not automatically defer to the authority of cop testimony and would evaluate all witness testimony in the same way--even cops.

Note that when you ask how a court treats testimony, a trial may be either by judge or by jury, which are two different things.

[msanthrope]

12. There are a number of techniques you use to level the playing field.....

1) The voir dire....in Philly, there are questions on the pre-printed voir that ask if you are more likely to believe the police, or less, or just the same as everyone else. That helps identify certain jurors (along with other questions) who might be pro-cop types.

2) Area of the city where people live....you want people from places where the cops are least helpful---working class, poor, and hipster neighborhoods.

3) You always check the cops social media. Cops think they are so, soooooo....fuckin' smart. They're all on social media. So are their girlfriends, family, wives, and kids. If a cop is posting to Facebook at the same time on a police report.....

4) Always check who showed up at the scene but the DA didn't call.

5) Always ask the judge for a warning instruction to the jury in the charge that cops are to be assessed on credibility just like anyone else.

6) Always question their daily working conditions, percentage of arrests, where they sat when they observed the crime....

7) You hammer them on prior arrest, interactions, work history. You throw the kitchen sink.


The thing is--you'd never get that precedent because it's discriminatory....it's judging people's credibility based on a class or occupation. But trust me...this is why people on DU should answer their jury calls.

Because cops don't testify....they "testilie."

[lovemydog]

13. Excellent summary. Thank you

msanthrope!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

15. I should keep this in my wallet for a rainy day.

I do appreciate your response. But if I'm reading it correctly, my assumption (that courts are supposed to take the word of a police officer over the word of a citizen in the absence of other information) is incorrect. I probably shouldn't form my legal opinions from Law & Order and John Grisham books.

Again, thank you for taking time to reply. I respect your legal opinion (but I also look forward to the next natural opportunity to argue Greenwald/Snowden with you, which will serve to put my world back in its proper order).

[msanthrope]

17. There is no directive or law that courts/jurors must take the word of cops over the rest of us.

But there is reality. We are directed to respect the authority of the courts, and the police and prosecutors are part of that system.

So there's a fine line....and you need to lead the jury to the unmistakable...that every single witness has an agenda...even the cops. They must be weighed, and measured, like us all.

Equal protection under law. And equal skepticism.

[pinboy3niner]

16. Great insight, thanks

In watching voir dire while waiting in the pool, I noticed that DAs also don't like people who have ever been arrested, because that can be a red flag for anticop bias.

[msanthrope]

18. Exactly--because if you've been arrested, but are in the jury pool, chances are you had charges

dropped, had a minor crime, but can speak to the experience of jail, or....were acquitted.

And they use people who have been arrested as a way to back door eliminate minorities.

[pinboy3niner]

19. Thanks again

I report for jury duty Monday. I expect to be excluded by peremptory challenge (DA) again. On the off chance I'm selected for a jury, I'll be a damn good juror.

[msanthrope]

20. Dress middle class and smile at the prosecutor. It goes a long way. nt

[pinboy3niner]

21. I don't want to seduce him (or her)!!!

I've seen people try hard to be selected and try hard to get off. I don't try for a result, I just give straight answers. But perhaps I SHOULD try to get selected (as long as it doesn't involve being dishonest) just to assure that there's at least one juror who will actually give the defendant a fair shake.

[lovemydog]

23. I think you should wear a Star Trek Federation shirt

and say Nanoo! Nanoo! every few minutes.

Seriously, I think you'd make a damn fine juror.

[pinboy3niner]

24. LOL! Should I speak in Klingon?

I have seen people work VERY hard to get off, and it was obvious. I saw one judge spend a LOT of time trying to qualify a prospective juror who said she had a bias in a domestic abuse case. The victim was Asian-American and the defendant was black. The judge even pointed to his white bailiff and asked if it would make a difference if he were the defendant, to eliminate the possibility of racial bias.

After endless questioning, the judge finally excused the prospective juror. After she left the room the judge remarked that her employer did not pay for jury service and implied that loss of pay was her motivation for stubbornly insisting she was biased.

All of us in the jury pool were excused for a recess, during which the defendant took a plea (likely because voir dire revealed a very negative view of abusers). AND we were all excused from further jury duty as having completed our service. All except the woman who insisted on her bias, who was sent back to the jury pool by the judge. She was ordered to report again the next day.

[lovemydog]

25. Heh, cool judge.

Was like 'you're not fooling me!'

[pinboy3niner]

26. He had her number

Which makes it more surprising that he spent so much time trying to qualify her, since he knew what was going on.

What was heartening was that so many others undergoing voir dire expressed negative bias against domestic abusers. I was impressed! But unlike the one slacker, under questioning they all said they still would be able to reach a fair and unbiased decision.

[lovemydog]

27. Yeah, most jurors take their responsibility

seriously. Except for that juror in 12 Angry Men who kept wanting to 'get to the Mets game!'

[pinboy3niner]

30. Ha!

I'm not tryng to get off jury duty, I'm happy to do it (even if they never pick me). Hearing from defense lawyers like msanthrope, I'm wondering if I should try to get ON. It sounds like we really need jurors who can be truly fair an impartial.

[pinboy3niner]

32. I don't mind sacrifice for the greater good

I've always believed in contributing back for what we have here. You could say that's how I got the Purple Heart. I'm not going to nickel-and-dime the cost to me of my jury service.

[jberryhill]

37. As pointed out a couple of times...

...your basic assumption is not valid.

However, there are a couple of things worth adding to the other comments above.

First, a criminal defendant rarely testifies at all. So in most instances that would amount to the word of the cop versus the word of the defendant, it works out to the word of the cop versus a defendant who is not going to be taking the stand.

If we are talking about a witness, it's open season for bias and attacks on credibility.

Let's say that a cop planted drugs in a car with some teenagers in it. Who are the witnesses? The cop and one of the other kids in the car? i.e. a friend of the defendant? Okay, friend of the defendant, have you ever smoked pot? No? Okay, for my next witness, I call ex-boyfriend of the friend of the defendant...

[pinboy3niner]

39. And the defendant will have a pubic defender

Someone covered up with umpty-ump cases and no time to research beyond the paperwork on the case.