Criminal
jury trials--you know what they are. The defendant and his attorney try to
fight off the allegations made by the prosecutor, and the focus of the trial is
always on the defendant. Well, anyway, that’s the way they play it on TV and in
the movies. But, that’s not really an accurate portrayal of what happens in a
courtroom. In a criminal jury trial, generally the most important person in the
courtroom is the investigating officer, and the most important evidence is his
testimony and the evidence he has collected.
So,
what makes the police investigator’s presence and testimony so important? The
best way to answer that is to tell you a little bit about “proof beyond a
reasonable doubt.”
If
the defendant elects to exercise his right to a jury trial, jurors will be
selected and the trial will begin. The criminal complaint infers that the trial
pits the prosecution against the defendant. That would lead one to believe the
defendant is the one on trial. That’s not true because it’s not the accused who
is on trial, it’s the evidence against him that is on trial.
You’re
saying to yourself, that’s crazy, the defendant is the one accused, so he’s
the one on trial, and if he loses, he may go to jail. While it’s true that
if the defendant is convicted he could very well go to jail, it would be more
accurate to say that the evidence is what is on trial, and that it must be of
sufficient weight to convince a jury of the guilt of the accused beyond a
reasonable doubt. So then, who carries the burden of such proof?
The
burden of proof is always on the prosecution to prove the defendant’s
guilt, and it must be done with competent evidence. The court will advise the
jury that they must make their decision based solely on the evidence
admitted during the trial.
With
very few exceptions, the defendant has no burden of proving his innocence; he
need not present any evidence or testimony, and the jury will be instructed by
the court that no adverse inference may be drawn from the failure of the
defendant to testify or present evidence on his behalf.
So,
the next time you hear someone complain that the defense attorney is shielding
his client by putting the officer on trial, you’ll now know that is more true
than false, and that’s the way it is supposed to be. That fact
often presents more than a minor problem for the prosecution. There is a reason
for that.
It
is true that law enforcement officers today receive excellent and very thorough
training, both in colleges and at police academies, on all of the skills needed
to be competent and prepared to go onto the streets of their cities and
towns to protect and serve the public, and they do so in a very remarkable and
courageous manner.
However,
on the other hand, they receive almost no training which prepares them to go
into a courtroom to present their evidence. As a result, many police
officers believe that once they make the arrest, the job of getting a
conviction is on the prosecutor. The prosecutor is the one who must ride into
court on his great white stallion, and through his brilliance, sway the jury
into believing the allegations against the defendant.
Actually,
it is the officer who is the key player in the production that is a criminal
trial. Not to minimize the need for competent lawyers on both sides, but the
case will almost always rest upon the preparation and testimony of the
investigating officer. If he is ill-prepared to take the witness stand and
defend his work by providing proper and competent testimony, the case, no
matter how compelling the evidence might have been, will most often fail.
If
the officer/witness is confronted with his written report, and if it is weak
and incomplete, then his testimony will also be weak and insufficient. In
court, a police officer’s written report is his partner, and any weaknesses in
it will be exploited by a competent defense attorney. Yet, almost none of the
police academies provide training for their students on the proper manner
of including into their reports all of the relevant and important information,
statements and evidence gathered during the investigation. Neither are they provided
information on how to combat the many pitfalls that await the officer on cross
examination.
Having
spent 32 years as a criminal trial lawyer, 17 of them as a prosecutor in both
state and federal courts, and 15 as a criminal defense attorney, I can tell you
through experience that I found most local, state, and even federal law
enforcement officers to be woefully unprepared to go into court to testify
adequately. I spent a lot of time searching for instructive text on that
subject and found no complete works had been done on those subjects. I decided
to write one myself and did so. The Police Officer in the Courtroom,
published by Charles C. Thomas of Springfield, IL, has been picked up and used
by an increasing number of police officers, and I hear from many of them
telling me how helpful it has been for them. In fact, several colleges have
incorporated my book into their criminal justice curriculum. More information
on that text may be found on my website at mysterywriterdonlewis.com.
I
am retired from the courtroom now and am using my experience to write crime
novels. In almost all of them there is an occasion to see illustrations of how
competent investigations can fall short because of an ineffective presentation
by the police officer.
This
is in no way an indictment of the police. Over the years, I have come to know
many police officers and agents, and I have a great deal of respect for the
dedication, perseverance, and courage they display in the performance of their
duties. They aren’t the ones to blame for their predicament; they aren’t the
ones who make up the curriculum at the schools and academies. The organizations
they are joining are the ones who should recognize the need for such training.
If
you thought this blog to be important or interesting and informative, please
pass it along to your friends.
