Æ benchmarks for progress improving witness safety and ... · resource, preventing witness...

Improving Witness Safety and Preventing Witness Intimidation in the Justice System: Benchmarks for ProgressÆ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

1100 H S�� NW, S�� 310 | W��, DC 20005 Main | 202-558-0040 Fax | 202-393-1918

��.AE��R��.��

© 2013 AEquitas: The Prosecutors’ Resource on Violence Against Women, a project of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape.

Main | 202-558-0040 Fax | 202-393-1918

T�� P��’ R�� V�� A�� W��

1100 H S�� NW, S�� 310W��, DC 20005

��.AE��R��.��

This project was supported by Grant No. 2010-MU-BX-K079 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Of�ice of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Of�ice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the SMART Of�ice, and the Of�ice for Victims of Crime. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the authors and do not represent the of�icial position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The information provided in this publication is for educational purposes only and is not intended to provide legal advice to any individual or entity.

AEquitas: The Prosecutors’ Resource on Violence Against Women

1100 H Street NW, Suite 310Washington, DC 20005Main | 202-499-0314Fax | 202-393-1918www. AEquitasResource.org

The Justice Management Institute

DC Area Office 1400 North 14th Street Floor 12Arlington, VA 22209Main | 720-235-0121www.JMIJustice.org

AuthorsFranklin Cruz Senior Program ManagerJustice Management Institute

Teresa M. GarveyAttorney Advisor AEquitas: The Prosecutors’ Resource on Violence Against Women

AcknowledgmentsThe concepts, ideas, and tools in this publication are in no small measure products of the hard work and dedication of all the partners involved in the Improving the Justice System Response to Witness Intimidation Initiative, a project of AEquitas: The Prosecutors’ Resource on Violence Against Women with support from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. We extend special thanks not only to the dedicated staff of AEquitas but also to: local practitioners in Duluth, MN; Knoxville, TN; and San Diego, CA whose work with AEquitas and whose safety and accountability audits shaped much of what is contained here; the Battered Women’s Justice Project, whose staff participated in and recorded many of the audit activities; and the experts who reviewed the information herein and provided input during the drafting process. The authors would like to acknowledge the significant contributions of Mary E. Asmus, Assistant City Attor-ney, Duluth, Minnesota City Attorney’s Office and Scott Miller, Blueprint Coordinator, Domestic Abuse Intervention Project. We also specially acknowledge the formidable work of Ellen Pence and Praxis International for advancing the field of safety for victims of domestic violence.

The authors would like to acknowledge the varied and candid feedback of the following peer reviewers whose contributions helped to chal-lenge and improve the quality of this resource: Audrey Roofeh, Training and Technical Assistance Coordinator, National Human Trafficking Resource Center, Polaris Project; Robert Laurino, Acting First Assistant Prosecutor, Essex County Prosecutors Office; Caroline Palmer, Law and Policy Manager, Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault; Christian A. Fisanick, Chief of the Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, whose opinions reflected in this publication are his own and not necessarily those of the U.S. Department of Justice; Denise Gamache, Director, Battered Women’s Justice Project; Edward F McCann, Jr., Deputy District Attorney, Philadelphia District Attorneys Office; Joyce Lukima, Vice-President, Services, Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape/National Sexual Violence Resource Center; Sheryl Golstein, Program Director, Education, The Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Foundation, Inc.; Steven Jansen, Vice-President, Association of Prosecuting Attorneys; Wanda Lucibello, Chief of the Special Victims Division in the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office, Kings County District Attorneys Office. The inclusion of individuals here as peer reviewer does not indicate their endorsement of this final product but their contri-butions were sincerely appreciated.

This publication was produced by the Justice Management Institute and AEquitas and supported by grant number 2010-MU-BX-K079, awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this product are those of the contributors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

© 2014 AEquitas: The Prosecutors’ Resource on Violence Against Women, a project of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape and Justice Management Institute

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

i

TableofContentsIntroduction...............................................................................................................................................................................1PartI.DefiningtheProblem:VictimandWitnessIntimidation...........................................................................3Howprevalentisvictimandwitnessintimidation?.............................................................................................4Whatdoesintimidationlooklike?...............................................................................................................................4Physicalviolence............................................................................................................................................................4Explicitthreats................................................................................................................................................................5Implicitthreatsandmenacingconduct................................................................................................................5Emotionalmanipulation.............................................................................................................................................6IntimidationpromotedbyunethicaldefenseCounsel...................................................................................7

Whoisvulnerabletointimidation?.............................................................................................................................7Victimsofdomesticviolence.....................................................................................................................................7Witnessestoorganizedcrime‐organg‐relatedviolence..............................................................................7Humantraffickingvictims..........................................................................................................................................7Immigrants.......................................................................................................................................................................8Childandjuvenilevictimsandwitnesses............................................................................................................8Victimsandwitnessesininstitutionalsettings.................................................................................................8

Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................................................9PartII.IdentifyingSolutions:IntegratingVictimandWitnessSafetyIntoCriminalJusticeSystems10Frameworkforchartingprogressinensuringsafety........................................................................................10Commonsafetyvulnerabilitiesincriminaljusticesystems............................................................................11Bestpracticeprinciplesforsystemiccriminaljusticesafetyresponses....................................................14PracticePrinciple1.Planandimplementahighly‐visiblecoordinatedjusticesystemresponsetovictimandwitnessintimidationthatspansthetimefrominitialreportofacrimethroughpost‐releasesupervisionoftheoffender...........................................................................................................15PracticePrinciple2.Usecommunity‐basedapproachestobuildtrustwithneighborhoodresidentsandtoencouragereportingofinformationaboutcriminalincidentsincludingintimidation....................................................................................................................................................................16PracticePrinciple3.Educatevictimsandwitnessesaboutwitnessintimidation...........................16PracticePrinciple4.Equipcriminaljusticeleadershipandstaffwithanoperationalknowledgeofintimidationandsafety........................................................................................................................................17PracticePrinciple5.Maintainconsistentteamofcriminaljusticeactorsthatworkswithvictimsandwitnessestobuildtrustandrespondholisticallytotheirneeds....................................17PracticePrinciple6.Usebothobjectiveassessmentsandinputfromvictimsandwitnessestodetermineriskofandvulnerabilitytointimidation.Usetheassessmentsandinputtoinformwitnesssafetyefforts.................................................................................................................................................18PracticePrinciple7.Createinformation‐sharingpoliciesthatlinkjusticesystemactorsandallowthemtoidentifypatternsofbehaviorandpossibleintimidationinindividualcases........19

Table of Contents

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

ii

PracticePrinciple8.Makeallreasonableeffortstominimizecontactbetweenvictims/witnessesanddefendantsthroughoutthejusticesystemprocess......................................20PracticePrinciple9.Createasafespaceincourthouses............................................................................21PracticePrinciple10.Tracktheprogressandoutcomesofeffortsandusethatinformationtoinformsystemimprovement..................................................................................................................................22

Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................................................22PartIII.ImplementingChange:AProcessforWitnessSafetyAssessmentandImprovement.............24Backgroundonmethodology.......................................................................................................................................24ActionStep1.Ensurethatthejusticesystemhasthecapacitytochange...............................................25ActionStep2.Conveneanactionteamtoguidetheassessmentandleadimplementation............26ActionStep3.Definethecurrentstateofvictimandwitnesssafety.........................................................26Determining“opportunitiesforintimidation”.................................................................................................27Determining“documentedincidenceofwitnessintimidation”...............................................................28

ActionStep4.Compareexistingpracticetobestpractices...........................................................................29ActionStep5.Developandimplementanactionableplan............................................................................29ActionStep6.Monitor,evaluate,andimprovevictimandwitnesssafetyefforts................................32Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................................................34

Appendices:Tools,Tables,andAdditionalResources...........................................................................................35AppendixA:PartIIResources.....................................................................................................................................35AppendixB:PartIIIResources...................................................................................................................................37AppendixC.RubrictoAssessOperationalKnowledgeofVictimandWitnessSafetyAmongCriminalJusticePractitioners......................................................................................................................................38AppendixD.IndicatorsofReadinesstoChange.................................................................................................42AppendixE.ProtocolforAssessingandQuantifying“OpportunitiesforIntimidation”....................43AppendixF.Information‐GatheringStrategiesforDeterminingSystemAlignmenttotheBestPracticePrinciples............................................................................................................................................................46AppendixG.RubrictoDetermineAdherencetoBestPracticePrinciples...............................................49AppendixH.SMARTObjectives..................................................................................................................................59

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

IMPROVING WITNESS SAFETY AND PREVENTING WITNESS INTIMIDATION IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM: BENCHMARKS FOR PROGRESS

1

IntroductionImagineyourselfasavictimofaviolentcrime.Youarephysicallyinjuredandyouaretraumatizedbytheevent.Youfearforyourownsafetyandthatofyourlovedones.Youstrugglewiththeemotionsandotherpsychologicaleffectsthatoftenfollowatraumaticevent.Youwonder,shouldyougotothepolice?Willthatputeveryoneinmoredanger?Next,imaginethatsomeonehasreachedouttoyoutohelpyou.Heasksyoudetailedquestionsaboutthecrime.Youareuncomfortablerelivingtheevent,butyougothroughwithitbecausethispersonisheretohelpyou.Whatwillhappenifthisinformationisshared?Thispersonconcludesthemeetingbytalkingaboutavailableresourcesshouldyouneedtotalktosomeoneorshouldyoufeelindangeragain.Youtrytotellhimyouarescaredbuthedoesn’twriteanythingdownbecausenothingspecifichashappenedyet.Hegivesyouhiscardandthenleaves.Threedayslateranotherpersonaskstospeakwithyouaspartofaninvestigationintothecrime.Sheasksyouthesamequestionsandgivesyoudifferentinformationaboutwheretogoforhelp.Youdon’ttellheryouarescared.Youcallthefirstpersonwhovisitedyoutoaskforhelpinsortingoutwhatishappening,butheisnotavailable.Youareinformedthatsomeoneelsehastakenyourcase,soyouaretransferredtothatperson.Sheasksyoumorequestionsinordertogettoknowyou.Someofthequestionsarethesameonesyouhavenowansweredtwicebefore.Howwouldyoufeelnow?Whatwouldyouthinkofthesepeoplewhosaytheyareheretohelpyou?Nowimagineyouarecompelledtositinthesameroomwiththeindividualwhoattackedyou.Theindividualcan’tgetupandhurtyouphysically,butcanspeaktoyou,gestureandsendyoumessagesthroughtextorsocialmedia.Howwouldyoufeel?Whatwouldyouthinkofthepeoplewhoforcedyouintothatsituation?Theaboveisahypotheticalsituationthatonlyscratchesthesurfaceoftherealitiesthatvictimsandwitnesses1faceinourjusticesystemseveryday.Fromourprofessionalexperiences,weknowthatmanyperpetratorsofviolentcrimesintimidate,harass,threaten,andmanipulatevictimsandwitnessesinordertoavoidarrestandprosecution.Lessrecognizedishowthecriminaljusticesystemitselfmayfacilitateintimidationwhenconducting“businessasusual.”Theconventionalprocessofarrest,adjudication,andsentencinginvolvesfrequentinstancesofbringingvictims/witnessesandoffenderstogether.Signsofintimidationareoftenmissedduringtheseinstances,whichcompromisestrustandconfidenceinthesystem.Justicesystemsacrossthecountryhavenotkeptpacewithbestpracticesonvictimandwitnesssafety,despitewidespreadrecognitionthatpromotingsuchsafetyiscriticaltotheadministrationofjustice.Thepervasiveproblemofvictim/witnessintimidationincriminaljusticesystemsisonethatrequiresastrategyforchangeandfirmcommitmentsfromleadersandpractitionersalike.ThisResource,PreventingWitnessIntimidationandImprovingWitnessSafetyintheCriminalJusticeSystem:BenchmarksforProgress,includestoolsforpractitionerstousecollaborativelywithintheircommunities.Thesetoolsareintendedtoprovidecriminaljusticeleaderswithconcreteguidancetoimplementbestpracticesinprovidingforvictimandwitnesssafety.Whilemanyexperiencedjusticesystemprofessionalsareknowledgeableaboutintimidation,fartoomanyincidentsarestillmissed,misjudged,orotherwiseleftunaddressedduetoalackofcollaboration 1ThroughoutthisResourcethetermsvictimandwitnessintimidationwillbeusedtogetherandsometimessimplyrepresentedaswitnessintimidation.Theuseof“witnessintimidation”isnotintendedtoexcludevictims.

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ


2

andstrugglingtorespondtothispervasiveyetundetectedcrime.Practitioners,therefore,mayalsofindthispublicationhelpfulindevelopingorreinforcingtheirknowledgeofintimidation,ortheircolleagues’—bothinsideandoutsideofthecriminaljusticesystem—anddiscoveringwhatotherjurisdictionshavedonetopromotevictimandwitnesssafety.ThisResourcewasproducedthroughacollaborationbetweenAEquitas:TheProsecutors’ResourceonViolenceAgainstWomen(AEquitas)andtheJusticeManagementInstitute(JMI)andwassignificantlyinformedbytheinitiativeonImprovingtheJusticeSystemResponsetoWitnessIntimidation(IWI)2pilotsites:Knoxville,TN;Duluth,MNandSanDiego,CA.TheIWIworklookednotonlyatvictimandwitnesssafetyinthecontextofdomesticviolencebutalsoincasesofgang‐relatedviolence.ThisResource,whichintendstoprovideabroad‐basedresourceforsafeguardingwitnesssafety,isdividedintothreeparts:

PartI.DefiningtheProblem:VictimandWitnessIntimidation.Thispartprovidesabriefoverviewofwitnessintimidation,thevariousformsofintimidation,andcommoncharacteristicsofvictimsandperpetratorsofintimidation.

PartII.IdentifyingSolutions:IntegratingVictimandWitnessSafetyIntoCriminalJusticeSystems.ThispartpresentsaConceptualModeltomeasuretheprevalenceofactualintimidationinanyjurisdiction.Additionally,thissectionmapsoutcommonopportunitiesforintimidationaswellasgapsinvictimandwitnesssafety.ThemapdrawsfromliteratureonvictimandwitnessintimidationandbuildsontheexperienceoftheIWI’sthreepilotsites.Finally,tenbestpracticeprinciplesareidentified,againstwhichjurisdictionscanassessandcomparetheirownsystemresponses.TheseprinciplesalsodrawfromtheliteratureandfromtheexperienceofIWI’sthreepilotsites.However,theseprinciplesprovidemorethanjustsuggestionsforspecificresponses.Theyhavebeenstructuredintheformofauser‐friendlyandadaptabletoolforpractitionerstoassessthealignmentoftheirresponsestointimidationwiththeseprinciples,andtodocumenttheirprogressovertimeastheyimplementchange.

PartIII.ImplementingChange:AProcessforWitnessSafetyAssessmentandImprovement.Thispartlaysoutsixactionstepsforimplementingchange,describesaresearch‐informedmethodology,andprovidestoolstobegintheprocessforchangethatincludesmonitoring,evaluating,andimprovingvictimandwitnesssafetyefforts.InthispartoftheResource,criminaljusticeleaderswillfindastep‐by‐stepguidetoassessmentanddiagnosis,actionplanning,andmonitoringandsustainingchange.

2ThisInitiativeisafield‐initiatedprojectfundedbytheU.S.DepartmentofJustice,OfficeofJusticePrograms,BureauofJusticeAssistance.Formoreinformationonthisinitiativepleasevisit,http://aequitasresource.org/Improving‐the‐Justice‐System‐Response‐to‐Witness‐Intimidation.cfm.

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ


3

PartI.DefiningtheProblem:VictimandWitnessIntimidation3Witnessintimidationcanhindertheinvestigationandprosecutionofanycriminalcase,butitpresentspredictablechallengesincertaincategoriesofcrime.Wherethedefendanthasapre‐existingrelationshipwiththevictim,orincasesinvolvinggangsororganizedcrime,thedefendantoftenhastheability,directlyorindirectly,tocontinuetoinflictharmupon,ortoexerciseinfluenceover,thevictimorwitnesslongaftertheprecipitatingcriminalact.Victimsofdomesticviolenceareroutinelythreatenedandmanipulatedbytheirabuserstodropchargesortorefusetocooperatewithlawenforcement.Familymembersmaypressurevictimsofelderabuseorchildvictimsofsexualassaulttorecanttheirallegations.Humantraffickingvictims,orcooperatingwitnessesinsuchcases,arevulnerabletothreatsbytraffickersortheirassociates.Victimsof,orwitnessesto,organizedcrimeorgang‐relatedviolence,whooftenmustcontinuetoresideinthesameneighborhood—aneighborhoodthatmaybeunderthedefactocontrolofthegangorcriminalorganization—arelabeled“snitches”andtherebymadetargetsforintimidationandreprisal.Victimsofcrimesthatoccurininstitutionalsettings,suchasschools,hospitals,orprisons,maybeforcedtocontinueinteractingwithassociatesoftheirabusersonadailybasis.Witnessintimidationcan,andoftendoes,resultinfailuretoreportcrimes,refusaltospeakwithinvestigators,recantationofstatementspreviouslygiven,andrefusaltotestifyattrial.Somevictimswilltestifyinfavorofthedefendant—activelyopposingtheprosecution’scaseandclaimingthattheyliedtopoliceorwerecoercedbypoliceintofalselyimplicatingthedefendant.SomewitnesseswillclaimaFifthAmendmentprivilegeinanefforttoavoidtestifying,evenwhenthereisnovalidlegalbasistoasserttheprivilege.Somewitnesseswillsimplydisappearpriortotrial,fearingfortheirownsafetyorthatoftheirfamiliesiftheytestifyagainstthedefendant.Althoughwitnessintimidationmostoftenoccurspriortotrialorduringthetrialitself,intimidationandreprisaldonotnecessarilyendwhenthedefendantisfoundguiltyandsentenced.Whetheradefendantreceivesanoncustodialsentenceorisimprisonedinamaximum‐securityfacility,heorshemaycontinuetostalk,threaten,orintimidatevictimsandwitnesses,withtheaimofsecuringapost‐convictionrecantation,toretaliateagainstthemfortheircooperationwithlawenforcement,ortosendamessagetoothersabouttheconsequencesofcooperation.Witnessintimidationis“behaviorwhichstrikesattheheartofthejusticesystemitself.”4Whenintimidationispermittedtooccur,andwhenitisnoteffectivelyaddressedbythesystemofjustice,victimsandwitnessessufferadditionalharm,defendantsescapeaccountabilityfortheiractions,andthegeneralpublicbecomescynicalandlosesconfidenceinlawenforcement.Criminalsbecomeemboldened,confidentintheirabilitytocontinuetheircriminalactivitieswithimpunity,whilevictimsandwitnessesdecideitisnotworththerisktoreportcrimesortocooperatewithlawenforcement.Lawenforcementprofessionalsbecomediscouragedandfrustratedbywitnesseswhowithholdinformationorrecantthestatementstheyhavealreadygiven.Whenwitnessintimidationresultsinamistrialordisturbsaconviction,theresultisacostlyre‐trial.Toallow

3PartIisadaptedfromTERESAGARVEY,AEQUITAS:THEPROSECUTOR’SRESOURCEONVIOLENCEAGAINSTWOMEN,WITNESSINTIMIDATION:MEETINGTHECHALLENGE(June2013),availableat,http://www.aequitasresource.org/Witness‐Intimidation‐Meeting‐the‐Challenge.pdf.4Devonshirev.UnitedStates,691A.2d165(D.C.1997)(quotingUnitedStatesv.Mastrangelo,693F.2d269(2dCir.1982)).

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ


4

witnessintimidationtogouncheckedistocompromisetheintegrityofthecriminaljusticeprocessoverallanditsresponsibilitytopromotepublicsafety.HOWPREVALENTISVICTIMANDWITNESSINTIMIDATION?

Accuratestatisticsonwitnessintimidationarehardtocomeby,inpartduetothedifficultyofidentifyingandinterviewingthosewitnesseswhoaresubjecttotheworst,mosteffectiveformsofintimidation.Thestudiesthathavebeendonehaveinvolvedsamplesofvictimsandwitnessesinsinglejurisdictionsoveradiscreteperiodoftime.Nevertheless,theinformationthatisavailablesuggestsaproblemthatispervasiveandincreasing.AstudyofwitnessesinBronx,NewYork,publishedin1990,suggeststhat36percentofwitnessesweredirectlythreatenedandoverhalfoftheremainingwitnessesfearedretaliation.5Otherresearchershavedocumentedmorequalitativeassessmentsofthewitnessintimidationbycanvassinglawenforcementandprosecutors.Inthesestudies,witnessintimidationissaidtooccurin75‐100percentofviolentcrimeinneighborhoodswithastronggangpresence.Inotherneighborhoods,theprevalenceislowerbutstillsignificant.6Inadditiontogang‐relatedcases,policeandprosecutorsfrequentlyidentifydomesticviolencevictimsasbeingparticularlysusceptibletointimidationeffortsthatresultinwitnessreluctanceorrefusaltotestify.WHATDOESINTIMIDATIONLOOKLIKE?

Witnessintimidationcantakemanyforms,anditmaybedirectorindirect.Commonformsofintimidationincludeactsofphysicalviolence,verbalandnon‐verbalcommunicationofthreats,threatsimpliedbyconduct,andemotionalmanipulation.Actsofintimidationmaybeinfullviewofmanywitnesses(asingang‐relatedorhumantraffickingcases,wheretheperpetratorwishestoinfluencemorethanasinglewitness—orthecommunityatlarge—withtheconsequencesofcooperatingwiththepolice),inprivatewithnooutsidewitnesses,orinpublicbutconcealedordisguisedsothatonlytheintendedtargetunderstandsthemessage.Anyformofintimidationmaybecarriedoutbythedefendantpersonally,ormaybecarriedoutbyothersactingontheirbehalf,usually(thoughnotalways)withthedefendant’sknowledgeandconsent,ifnotontheirexplicitinstructions.Regardlessoftheformittakes,itspurposeisinvariablythesame:toallowtheoffendertoescapejusticebypreventingwitnesstestimonyorothercooperationwithlawenforcement(e.g.,providinginformationorphysicalevidence,orevenobtainingmedicaltreatmentthatmightresultinareporttolawenforcementanddisclosureofthecrime).PhysicalviolenceDirectintimidationmayconsistofactualviolence,withorwithoutaccompanyingverbalthreats.Themostextremeexample,ofcourse,isthekillingofawitnesstopreventhimorherfromcooperatingwiththepoliceorfromtestifyingincourt.Thisultimateactmayserveacriminalpurposebeyondtheeliminationofthatwitness’stestimony,however.Particularlyincasesinvolvinggangsorotherorganizedcriminalactivity,suchakillingmayhavetheintendedpurpose,andoftenhastheeffect,ofservingasawarningthatwilldeterotherwitnessesfromcomingforwardorcooperatingwithlawenforcement.Consideredinthiscontext,suchactsmayalsoresultintheintimidationofpotentialjurors,creatingensuingdifficultyselectingandempanelingajury, 5R.DAVIS,B.SMITH&M.HENLEY,VICTIMSERVICESAGENCY,VICTIM/WITNESSINTIMIDATIONINTHEBRONXCOURTS:HOWCOMMONISIT,ANDWHATAREITSCONSEQUENCES?(1990),http://www.popcenter.org/problems/witness_intimidation/PDFs/Davis_etal_1990.pdf.6K.HEALEY,NAT’LINST.OFJUSTICE,VICTIMANDWITNESSINTIMIDATION:NEWDEVELOPMENTSANDEMERGINGRESPONSES.RESEARCHINACTIONSERIES(1995),https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/witintim.pdf.

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ


5

andthepotentialformistrialorreversalonappealifjurorfearsvoicedduringthetrialordeliberationaffecttheabilityofthejurytoremainimpartial.Shortofcausingtheactualdeathofthewitness,lesseractsofviolencecanbejustaseffectiveinpreventingwitnessesfromcooperating.Abeating,wounding,orbrutalsexualassaultcarriesatleasttheimplicitthreatofcontinuedormoresevereviolenceifthewitnesspersistsincooperatingwiththepoliceorprosecution.Abatteredwoman,thrownacrosstheroomafterthepoliceleavethescenewithoutmakinganarrest,doesnotneedtohavethesignificanceofthatactspelledout.Inneighborhoodsdominatedbygangsororganizedcrime,actsofviolenceagainstwitnessesnotonlydiscouragewitnesscooperationinthatwitness’scase,butdiscourageanyotherwitnesscooperationwithrespecttoanyfuturecrimesthatmaybecommitted,therebyallowingthecriminalorganizationtooperatewithimpunity,andenhancingthefearsomenessofitsreputationamongrivalgangsorcriminalorganizations.ExplicitthreatsEvenifnophysicalviolenceisused,explicitthreatsmayeffectivelysilenceawitness.Adefendantmayspelloutforthevictimorwitnessexactlywhatconsequencesareinstoreifheorshereportsthecrimetothepoliceorcooperatesinanyotherway.Ingang‐ororganized‐crime‐dominatedneighborhoods,themerethreatmaybesufficienttoputthewitnessinfear–fearnotonlyoftheperpetrator,butalsooftheperpetrator’scriminalassociatesandeventhewitness’sownfriends,neighbors,orfamilymembers,whomayalsopressurethewitnessnottogetinvolved.The“StopSnitching”motifpopularizedoverthepastfewyearsinhip‐hopmusic,graffiti,andfashioncarriestheclearmessagethatinformantsandwitnessescooperatewithlawenforcementattheirownriskandthatthatcooperationissociallyunacceptable.Thethreatneednotbeonetocommitanactofviolence;threatstodiscloseembarrassingfactsorliesaboutthevictim;threatstoreportcriminalactivity(realorfabricated);andimmigration‐relatedthreats(“Ifyouleaveme,youwillbedeported”)maybeeffective.Inthefamilysetting,abusersmaythreatentotakeawaythecustodyofchildrenortousetheirsuperiorfinancialandlegalresourcestoleavethevictiminfinancialstraits.Ifthefamilyisnolongertogether,theabusermaythreatentoreportthevictimtochildwelfareauthorities.Victimsofelderabusemaybethreatenedwithphysicalorfinancialabandonment.Moderntechnologymakesitpossibletocommunicatethreatsusingblogs,socialmedia(e.g.,Facebook,Twitter),textmessages,email,andvoicemail.Thesourceofthesecommunicationsmaybeconcealedwithtechnology,atechniquecalled“spoofing,”requiringpropercomputerforensicevidence‐gatheringtechniquestoconnectthecommunicationstothedefendant.Inadditiontomakingthreatsagainstthewitnesspersonally,adefendantorathirdpartyactingontheirbehalfmaydirectthreatsagainstthewitness’sfamilyandlovedones,includingchildrenandpets.Victimsandwitnesseswhoareimmigrantsmaybethreatenedwithreprisalsagainstfamilymembersindistantcountries,particularlyingang‐relatedorhumantraffickingcases,wherethedefendantsmayhaveassociatesorinfluencewithgovernmentofficialsinthosecountries.ImplicitthreatsandmenacingconductNonverbalcommunicationwithoutanexplicitthreatisanothereffectiveformofintimidation.Readilyunderstoodthreatsincludegestures,suchasmakingaslashingmotionacrossthethroat,mimickingthefiringofagun,ormimingthesnappingofthewitness’sphotographwhileinthecourthousetotestify.Incasesinvolvingdomesticviolence,humantrafficking,organg‐relatedviolenceagainstavictimwhoisassociatedwiththegang,theremaybeahistoryofviolenceagainst

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ


6

thevictimsuchthata“code”wordorphrase,anoutwardlyambiguousgesture,orafacialexpressionassociatedwithpreviousassaultsissufficienttocommunicatethethreat.Somethreatsaresymbolic(e.g.,adozenyellowrosesdeliveredtoavictimwhohasbeentoldthatthedayshereceivesadozenyellowrosesisthedayshewilldie).Cross‐burningshavebeenusedforyearsassymbolicthreatsagainstAfricanAmericanvictimsinpartsoftheSouth,andorganizedcrimeorgangmembersmaydeliversymbolicthreatsintheformofdeadanimalsorutilizesomeotherobjectorsign,suchasgraffiti,thatthevictimwillrecognizeasathreat.Othermenacingconduct,suchasstalkingbehavior,isoftenusedtointimidatevictims.Suchconductcommunicatestothevictimorwitnessthatheorsheisbeingwatchedbytheperpetrator,anddiscouragescontinuedcooperationwithinvestigatorsorprosecutors.Awitnessmayreceiverepeatedhang‐upcallsorcallsplayingmusicorwithstrangesounds.Gangmembersmayfillthecourtroomwhileawitnessisonthestand,andtheirvisiblepresencemayfrightenthewitnessintosilence.Vandalismandpropertydamage,includinggraffiti,windowbreaking,orshootinggunfireatawitness’shomeorcarsendsaclearmessage.EmotionalmanipulationFinally,moresubtleformsofpressure,someofwhichmaynotfaciallyappeartobeintimidation,canbeusedtomanipulatevictimsinanefforttodissuadethemfromcooperatingwithlawenforcement.Abusivepartnersinintimaterelationshipshaveanadvantagethatmanydefendantsdonot—theyknowpreciselywhattheirvictims’emotionalvulnerabilitiesare.Victimsofintimatepartnerviolencemaybetherecipientsoftearfulapologies,declarationsoflove,assurancesthattheabuserwillchangeifonlythevictimwillbeforgiving,promisestoquitdrinkingorusingdrugs,promisestomarryortoattendcounselingsessions.Thesearecommontacticsthatplayuponthevictim’sdesperatewishnottobeinthepositionofbeingresponsibleforthecriminalconvictionofsomeonetheyonceloved,andforwhomtheymaystillcaredeeply,someonewithwhomtheymayhavechildren.Thedefendantmayconvincethevictimthatiftheysimplymakethecasegoaway,thedefendantwillfinallychange,havingreceivedanimportant“wakeupcall.”Thiskindofemotionalpressuremaycomenotonlyfromtheabuser,butalsofromfamilymembersofbothparties,particularlywhen,assooftenhappens,theabusehasbeenhiddenfromothers.Abusersareoftenveryskilledatpresentingacalm,reasonable,andlovingappearancearoundfamilyandfriends,andarefrequentlyadeptatgainingtheirsympathyandsupportattheexpenseofthevictim,whoisoftenintentionallyisolatedfrompotentialsourcesofsupport.Insuchcasesitispossiblethattheindividualsexertingthepressuremaybeunawarethattheyareadvancingtheabuser’sschemetosilencethevictim.Childrenareparticularlyvulnerabletoemotionalmanipulation.Witnessingabuseandbeingsubjectedtomanipulationbyabusersharmschildren.Childrenofanabusiverelationshipmaybeco‐optedbytheabuser,whowillblamethevictimfortheirarrestandincarcerationandwillencouragethechildrentopressurethevictimtodropthecharges.Sometimesboyswillemulatetheirfathers’treatmentoftheirmothersandbecomesurrogateabusersintheirfathers’absence.Thechildrenthusareplacedsquarelyinthemiddle:theyarebothmanipulatedbytheabuserandusedasameanstomanipulatetheirmother,thedomesticviolencevictim.Incasesinvolvingchildsexualassaultbyaparentorotherrelative,thenon‐abusingparentorotherrelativesmaybeindenialthattheabusecouldhaveoccurred,andmaythreatenthechild’ssecuritybyblamingthechildforbreakingupthefamily.Thechildmaybethreatenedwithplacementinfostercareoragrouphome,ormaybeblamedforprovokingtheabuse.Thechildmayultimately

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ


7

recantthereportofabuseor“forget”whathappenedtoregainhisorhersenseofsecurity.Childrenmayalsobebribedwithpromisesorgiftstochangetheirtestimony.IntimidationpromotedbyunethicaldefensecounselInadditiontofamily,friends,andcriminalassociates,somedefendantshaveanotherpotentialsourceofthird‐partyintimidation:theirownlegaldefenseteam.Ethicaldefenseattorneysroutinelyabidebycourtrulesandorders,andrefrainfromharassingandintimidatingconduct.However,someattorneysareheedlesslyoverzealousorfailtocontroltheirinvestigativeteam,conductingthedefenseinwaysthatsupportthedefendant’sintentiontopreventthevictimorwitnessfromtestifying.Inappropriatetacticsmaycausethatvictimtoceaseallcooperationwiththeproceedingsoreventogointohidingtoavoidtheintrusivenessofthedefenseinvestigation.Examplesinclude:repeatedlyharassingthevictimforaninterview(whenthedesirenottospeakwiththeattorneyorinvestigatorhasbeenclearlycommunicated),invadingtheprivacyofavictimbyseekingpersonalorconfidentialinformationthathasnopossiblerelevancetotheproceedings,orseekingunwarrantedpsychiatricorphysicalexaminationsofthevictim.Unethicaldefenseattorneysmayalsosharewiththeirclientspersonalinformationaboutavictimorwitnessobtainedindiscoverythathasbeenrestrictedtotheattorneyonlybyvirtueofaprotectiveorder.WHOISVULNERABLETOINTIMIDATION?

Althoughavictimorwitnesscanbeintimidatedinalmostanykindofcriminalcase,certaincategoriesofvictimsandwitnessesaremorelikelytobesubjectedtointimidationattempts.Whentherearemultiplevulnerabilityfactors(e.g.,avictimofdomesticviolencewhoisalsoarecentimmigrant),theopportunitiesforintimidation,andthekindsofthreatstowhichtheymaybesubjected,increaseaccordingly.VictimsofdomesticviolenceVictimsofdomesticviolencearealmostalwayssubjectedtosomeformofintimidationormanipulationduringthecourseofcriminalproceedings,asaretheirchildren.Oftenothersclosetothevictim,suchasfamiliesandfriends,aresubjectedtoeffortsbytheabusertodiscouragethemfromcooperatingwiththeinvestigationorfromprovidingemotionalormaterialsupporttothevictim.Witnessestoorganized‐crime‐organg‐relatedviolenceWitnessestoviolenceperpetratedbyacriminalorganizationarefrequentlysubjectedtointimidationtacticsinconnectionwiththeirhavingprovidedinformationorcooperationtolawenforcement.Moreover,criminalorganizationssuchasgangsarelikelytoperpetuateanatmosphereoffearandintimidationintheneighborhoodswheretheyoperate.Thiskindofcommunity‐wideintimidationcontributestothe“nosnitching”credothatfrustratestheabilityoflawenforcementtoeffectivelyinvestigateandprosecutesuchcrimes.HumantraffickingvictimsHumantraffickingvictimsinforcedsexand/orforcedlabormarketsare,likedomesticviolencevictims,subjectedtointimidationandthreatsonanongoingbasis,aspartofthetrafficker’sschemetoensnarethemandthentokeepthemenslaved.Thelevelofintimidationonlyincreaseswiththeprospectofavictim’scooperationwithaninvestigationofthetrafficker.Thesevictimsoftensharecharacteristicswithothervulnerablegroups,aswhenthevictimisalsoinvolvedinanintimaterelationshipwiththetraffickerorwhenthevictimisanimmigrant,potentiallysubjecttodeportationorwhosefamilymembersinhisorherhomecountrymaybethreatenedwithharm.

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ


8

ImmigrantsVictimswhoareimmigrants,particularlythosewhohaveonlyrecentlyarrivedinthiscountry,maybesubjectedtothreatsofdeportation.Incasesinvolvinggangswithapresenceinthevictim’shomecountry,orhumantraffickerswithcontactsandinfluenceinthevictim’shomecountry,thevictimmaybethreatenedwithharmtofamilymemberswhoremaininthatcountry.Thevulnerabilityofimmigrantvictimsincreaseswhentherearebarriersoflanguageandofculturethatpreventthemfromseekingsupportservicesorfromunderstanding,ortrusting,lawenforcementandthecriminaljusticeprocess.ChildandjuvenilevictimsandwitnessesChildvictimsandwitnessesareparticularlyvulnerabletothreatsandemotionalmanipulation.Becauseoftheirdependenceontheadultsintheirlives,includingtheabuserincasesoffamilyviolenceandsexualabuse,childrenmayallywiththeabuserfortheirownphysicalandemotionalsafety.Childvictimsofhumantraffickingareisolatedfromresponsibleadults,suchasteachersandhealth‐careproviders,whomightotherwiseassistthem.Juvenilevictimsof,orwitnessesto,gangviolenceareoftenmembersofgangs,themselves—eithermembersofthesamegangasthedefendant(s),ormembersofarivalgang.Assuch,theyaresubjectedtoanevenhigherdegreeofpressure,threats,andretaliationthanvictimsorwitnesseswhohavenoconnectiontogangactivity.Juvenilegangmembers,moreover,arelikelytohavelittlesupportfromparentsorcontactwithtrustworthyadultssuchasteachersorcounselors.Juvenilewitnessestogangviolencepresentuniquewitnessmanagementproblems,sincetheirsocialandemotionaltiestothegangmaybesostrongthattheyresisteffortsbylawenforcementtoprotectthemduringandafterthecriminalinvestigation.Mostlawenforcementagenciesarepresentlyill‐equippedtoprovidetheservicesthattheseyoungwitnessesneedfortheirongoingsafety.VictimsandwitnessesininstitutionalsettingsVictimsofabuseorviolenceoccurringininstitutionalsettings,suchasschools,prisons,hospitals,orgrouphomesareparticularlyvulnerabletointimidation,regardlessofwhethertheassailantisastaffmemberoranotherstudent,inmate,patient,orresident.Wheretheabuserisastaffmember,thatindividualtypicallyhastremendouspoweroverthelifeandwell‐beingofthevictim.Eveniftheabuserisremovedfromtheinstitution,heorshemayhavefriendswhoareinapositiontointimidateortoretaliateagainstthevictimfordisclosingtheabuse.Whentheassailantisanotherstudent,inmate,patient,orresident,thatdefendantalsomayhaveallieswhoareableandwillingtointimidatethevictimoranywitnesscourageousenoughtospeakout.Incorrectionalinstitutions,theinstitutionitselfmayeffectively“punish”thevictimorwitnessbyplacinghimorherinisolationfromothersforthewitness’sownprotection.Suchsegregationmayresultinthelossofprivilegesenjoyedbyindividualsingeneralpopulation,andmayevenbackfirebyhighlightingthefactthatthewitnessiscooperating.Incarceratedwitnessestocrimescommittedoutsidetheinstitutionoftenfacerisksfromthedefendantagainstwhomtheyarecooperatingandfromthedefendant’sincarceratedassociates.Eventransferstootherinstitutionsmaynotassurethesafetyofsuchwitnesseswheretheprisongrapevinecanrapidlycommunicateinformationbetweeninstitutionsaboutwhoiscooperatingagainstwhom.Suchwitnessesaresometimesdirectlythreatenedwhiletheyarebeingtransportedforcourtappearancesorplacedinholdingfacilitieswhilewaitingtotestify.Toeffectivelyaddresstheproblemofvictimandwitnessintimidationrequiresthecollaborationofpolice,prosecutors,investigators,judges,andadvocates,aswellashealthcare,socialservices,andcorrectionsprofessionals,allofwhommaycomeintocontactwithvictimsorwitnesseswhoare

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ


9

vulnerabletointimidationorwithdefendantswhointimidate.Thosestakeholdersneedtounderstandwhenandhowintimidationismostlikelytooccur,inordertopreventitsoccurrence,topromptlyandeffectivelyaddressitwhenitoccurs,andtosuccessfullyprosecutecasesinspiteofdefendants’effortstopreventwitnessesfromcooperating.CONCLUSION

Knowledgeaboutthekindsofcasesinwhichvictimandwitnessintimidationismostlikelytooccur,andthemeansbywhichitcanbecarriedout,willenablepolice,prosecutors,andalliedprofessionalstocoordinatetheireffortstopreventitsoccurrence,topromptlyandeffectivelyaddressitwhenitoccurs,andtosuccessfullyprosecutecasesinspiteofdefendants’effortstopreventwitnessesfromcooperating.Defendantsengageinwitnessintimidationbecauseitworks.Totheextentthatthecriminaljusticesystemcanmakeintimidationalosingpropositionfordefendants,victimsandwitnesseswillbesaferandmorewillbewillingtocomeforwardandcooperatetoensurepublicsafety.

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ


10

PartII.IdentifyingSolutions:IntegratingVictimandWitnessSafetyIntoCriminalJusticeSystems

Victimandwitnessintimidationchallengesthefoundationofthejusticesystem,whichisbuiltonitscapacitytorenderjusticeandensurepublicsafety.Acriticalfunctionofthejusticesystemistoensurethatindividualscaneasilyreportcrimesandfeelsafeparticipatinginprosecutionswithoutfearofretaliation.Unfortunately,therealityisthatsomejusticesystemprocessesfailtocomprehensivelyprotectvictimsandwitnessesfromintimidation.ThispartoftheResourcewillguidepractitionersnotonlyindefiningthescopeofvictimandwitnessintimidationintheirjurisdictionsbutalsoinreviewinghowtheirsystemsmightbetterpromotesafety.Itisdividedintothreesections.Thefirstsection,Frameworkforchartingprogressinensuringsafety,describesamodelfordefiningtheactualincidenceofintimidationsoastogaugeprogressovertime.Thesecondsection,Commonsafetyvulnerabilitiesinjusticesystems,chartsthecommonpitfallsandvulnerabilitiesinthejusticesystemrelativetovictimandwitnesssafety.Finallythethirdsection,Bestpracticeprinciplesforsystemicsafetyresponses,describesbestpracticesforjusticesystemstouseasaguidefordevelopingsystemicresponsestointimidation.FRAMEWORKFORCHARTINGPROGRESSINENSURINGSAFETY

Beforecreatingasystemicresponsetointimidation,itisimportanttoconsiderwhatyouwanttoachieve,andhowtomeasureprogresstowardthatoutcome.However,whatiftheunderlyingproblemisonethatisimpossibletomeasure?Theproblemofvictimandwitnessintimidationmayinfactbeimmeasurable.Byitsnature,intimidationisdifficulttoidentifyunlessitisunsuccessfuloronlypartiallysuccessful.Thereisnorealwaytodeterminehowoftenintimidationsucceedsinpreventingcrimereportingorcooperationwiththeprosecution.Withoutaclearmeasureoftheincidenceofintimidationinacommunity,howcananyjurisdictiontrulydeterminewhetheritsresponsesareeffectiveindecreasingintimidationandenhancingsafety?Practitionersandexpertsinthefieldarereducedtolamentingtheunknownprevalenceandchallengesofintimidation,whetherindomesticviolence,gang,orotherviolentcrimescases,withoutasenseofdirectioninwhichtoproceedtoeffectivelyreduceitsoccurrence.Ultimately,practitionersshouldstrivetodecreaseandeliminatetheoccurrenceofintimidation.Withoutknowingexactlyhowoftenintimidationoccurs,therearetwofactorsthatcanbeusedtoquantifythetrueprevalenceofintimidation. Thefirstisdocumentedincidenceofwitnessintimidation.7Expertsagreethatthisnumberissignificantlylowerthantheactualincidenceofintimidation,butitdoesprovideatleastsomemeasureofhowwellthecriminaljusticesystemisrespondingwhenintimidationisidentified.Thesecondisthenumberofopportunitiesforintimidation.Thenumberofpotentialinstancesofintimidationwillfarexceedthereality,becauseitisunlikelythatdefendantsorotherpotentialintimidatorstakeadvantageofallopportunitiesforintimidation.Thesetwomeasures–documentedincidenceofwitnessintimidationandopportunitiesforintimidation–formtwoconcentriccircles,theformerembeddedwithinthelatter.Asshowninthediagrambelow,theactualincidenceofwitnessintimidationliesbetweenthesetwocircles.

7Commonchargesincludewitnessintimidation,tamperingwithawitness,solicitationofperjury,etc.FormoreinformationseetheAEquitasstatutorycompilation“WitnessIntimidation,”availableuponrequest.

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ


11

Figure1.ConceptualModelofPrevalenceofIntimidation

Bringingallthreecirclesintoalignmentwitheachotherappliessystemicpressuretodecreasetheactualincidenceofwitnessintimidation.

Theimplicationsherearesignificant.Criminaljusticeagenciesshouldworkcollaborativelytoincreasetheidentificationandprosecutionofintimidation(makethesmallestcirclebigger),whilealsoclosinggapsoropportunitiesforintimidation(makethelargestcirclesmaller).Thiswillbringthemclosertoeliminatingincidentsofintimidationaltogether.Moreover,jurisdictionscanmeasuretheirprogressfrombothendstoseeincreasesinprosecutionsandconvictionsovertimeandtoassessthedegreetowhichknownvulnerabilitiesintheirsystemarebeingreducedoreliminated.Thisframeworkcanbeacriticaltoolforcriminaljusticeleaderstodesign,implement,andevaluatetheirsystemicresponsestointimidationandsubsequentlygaugetheeffectivenessofvictimandwitnesssafetyefforts.Beforediscussingwhatthosesystemicresponsesshouldincorporate,identifyingthespecificopportunitiesforintimidationmeritsdiscussion.COMMONSAFETYVULNERABILITIESINCRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEMS

Thejusticesystemstrivestoensurethatcasesproceedefficientlythroughitwhileprioritizingtheprotectionofdefendants’dueprocessrights.Nonetheless,therearesignificantgapsinvictimandwitnesssafety,leadingtoopportunitiesforintimidation.Overthelasttwodecades,however,increasedattentiontoriskassessment,victimsafety,victims’rights,offenderaccountabilityandsystemaccountabilityhasledjusticesystemprofessionalstobeginfocusingonhow,when,andwhereintimidationoccurs.TheworkofAEquitasontheIWIinitiativeidentifiedcommongapsinpreventingandrespondingtointimidation,whichareaddressedbelow.Intimidationcanputpressureonvictimsandwitnessestobeuncooperativewithlawenforcementandprosecutorsafteracrimeisreported.Itcanalsopreventthoseindividualsfromcomingforwardtoreportacrimeatall,whichmayrepresentthemostsignificantareaofunaddressedintimidationinmanycommunities.“Communities”arenotlimitedtothosedefinedbygeographicalbounds.Theymayinclude,forexample,collegecampuseswheresexualassaultamongstudentspresentsasignificantchallengeasvictimandperpetratormayhavetocontinuetoworkandstudy

Actualincidenceofwitnessintimidation

Opportunitiesforintimidation

Documentedincidenceofwitnessintimidation

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ


12

incloseproximity.Theymayalsoincludemilitarybases,churchcommunities,orcivicorganizations.Theincreasinguseofsocialmediameansthattheintimidators’reachisevenbroader,resultingincontactsthataremorefrequent,notboundbylocation,andmoredamaging.Whenvictimsandwitnessesdocomeforward,theyareoftenrequiredtoappearatcourtatthesametimeasthedefendant.Evenwhenno‐contactordersareinplace,thiscloseproximitypresentssafetychallenges.Toensuresafety,justicesystemprofessionalsshouldthinkcreativelyabouthowtorespondtointimidationinsideandoutsideofcourthouses.Figure2belowmapsthecommonopportunitiesforintimidationthroughoutthelifeofacriminalcase,fromthecommissionofacrimethroughcompletionoftheoffender’ssentence,whetherincustodyorundercommunitysupervision.Localleadershipcanusethismaptoanalyzetheirownsystemsandtoidentifywheretheyhavebeenabletoclosegapsandwherevulnerabilitiespersist.8Figure2dividesthecriminaljusticeprocessintokeystagesorcomponents:

Incidentoccurs Incidentreportedtopolice Policeinitialresponse Policecomponent Arrest Jailholdawaitingfirstappearance Firstappearance/arraignment Pretrialproceedings Trial Sentencing Supervision/corrections

UntrackedpatternsofintimidatingbehaviorrepresentamajorgapandarerepresentedinFigure2asspanningthestagesoftheprocess.Perpetratorsmakeaseriesofthreats–implicitandexplicit–overtime.Inveryseriouscases,thesethreatsescalateandculminateinphysicalharm,includingdeath.Unfortunately,patternsofintimidatingbehaviorarenottrackedacrossthecriminaljusticesystem.Infact,thebehaviormayescapeattentionwithinasinglestage(e.g.,policefailingtorecognizeintimidationonthesceneatthetimeoftheirresponse).Evenwhensuchconductisrecognized,thatinformationisoftennotsharedwithothersystemactors,suchasprosecutorsandvictimadvocates,unlessthevictimtakesonthatresponsibility.Withoutthatflowofinformation,thoseinteractingwithvictimsandwitnessesdonothaveanaccuratepictureofthesafetyoftheseindividualsandareunabletorespondappropriatelytotheintimidation.

8ThemethodologyforsuchanassessmentinvolvesmanyofthesameactivitiesthathavecharacterizedSafetyandAccountabilityAuditsofresponsestodomesticviolence:observationsofpractitioners;interviewsorfocusgroupswithvictims/witnesses;andanalysisofcasereportsandfiles.SeePartIIIforfurtherdiscussionaboutsuchamethodology.FormoreinformationaboutSafetyandAccountabilityAudits,pleasevisitPraxisInternationalathttp://www.praxisinternational.org/


13 Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Figure2.MapofCommonOpportunitiesforIntimidationandGapsinVictimandWitnessSafety

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ


14

BESTPRACTICEPRINCIPLESFORSYSTEMICCRIMINALJUSTICESAFETYRESPONSES

TheMapofCommonOpportunities,Figure2,pointstospecifictargetsinthecriminaljusticeprocessthatneedtobeaddressedtoenhancesafetyforvictimsandwitnessesservedbythatsystem.Theapproachpresentedhereforunderstandingandrespondingtotheprevalenceofvictimandwitnessintimidationdoesnotrequirestartingfromscratch.Localandfederaljurisdictionsandinternationalcourtsworkingtoenhancevictim/witnesssafetyhavedevelopedeffectivewaysofaddressingsystemicvulnerabilities.Table1belowcombinesthemintoasetofbestpracticeprinciplesthataddressthesevulnerabilitieswhenrespondingtointimidation.Jurisdictionslookingtoimplementtheseprinciplesmustbeginwithapubliccommitmenttosafetyandaggressiveprosecutionofcriminalintimidation.Thiscommitmentinvolvesallkeysystemactorscomingtogethertoplanacoordinatedandcomprehensiveapproach–theonlyapproachthatcanrealisticallyaddressasafetyproblemaspervasiveasintimidation.Thiswillprovideafoundationfromwhichitispossibletobuildaneffectivesystemicresponsetointimidation,monitoroutcomes,ensuredesiredoutcomesareachieved,andallowforstrategiestoberefinedandenhancedovertime.Ofcourse,communitieswillhavedifferentstrengthsandneeds,sonoonesetofbestpracticeprinciplescanbeapplieduniversallytoalljurisdictions.Everycommunitywill–andshould–lookalittledifferentbutallcanbeinformedbytheprinciplessetforthinTable1.Theseprinciplesprovideaguideforplanningresponsesandforcreatingbenchmarkstomeasuresuccess.Table1.TenPrinciplesforEffectiveCriminalJusticeSystemSafetyResponses

1 Planandimplementahighly‐visiblecoordinated justicesystemresponse tovictimandwitnessintimidationthatspansthetimefrominitialreportofacrimethroughpost‐releasesupervisionoftheoffender.

2 Usecommunity‐basedapproachestobuildtrustwith neighborhoodresidentsandtoencouragereportingofinformationaboutcriminalincidentsincludingintimidation.

3 Educatevictimsandwitnessesaboutwitnessintimidation.4 Equipcriminaljusticeleadershipandstaffwithanoperationalknowledgeofintimidationandsafety.5 Maintainconsistentteamofcriminaljusticeactorsthatworkwithvictimsandwitnessestobuild

trustandrespondholisticallytotheirneeds.6 Useobjectiveassessmentsandinputfromvictimsandwitnessestodetermineriskofand

vulnerabilitytointimidation.Usethoseassessmentsandinputtoinformwitnesssafetyefforts.7 Createinformation‐sharingpoliciesthatlink justicesystemactors andallowthemtoidentifypatterns

ofbehaviorandpossibleintimidationinindividualcases.8 Makeallreasonableeffortstominimizecontactbetweenvictims/witnessesanddefendants

throughoutthejusticesystemprocess.9 Createsafespacesincourthouses.10 Tracktheprogressandoutcomesofeffortsandusethatinformationtoinformsystemimprovement.

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ


15

PracticePrinciple1.Planandimplementahighly‐visiblecoordinatedjusticesystemresponsetovictimandwitnessintimidationthatspansthetimefrominitialreportofacrimethroughpost‐releasesupervisionoftheoffender.

Theplanning,implementation,andmonitoringofwitnesssafetyprogramsrequireseffortandinvestmentfromtheentirecriminaljusticesystemandthebroadercommunity.Necessarypartnersinclude911,lawenforcement,jail,pretrialservices,prosecution,victimservices,courtsecurity,judiciary,courtadministration,probation,offenderprograms,corrections,parole,community‐basedvictimadvocacy,civillegalservices,medicalcommunity,etc.9Ateamofrepresentativesoftheseagenciescanmakepolicythatlooksthoughtfullyattheevidenceofintimidationandrespondssystemically.Thisteam’sgoalistoensurevictim/witnesssafetythroughouttheentirecriminaljusticeprocessfrominitialreportingthroughpost‐releasesupervision,includingwhileoffendersareonreleasestatusinthecommunity(e.g.,duringperiodsofprobationandpost‐releasefromincarceration).

Effectivesystemchangerequiresmorethantheassemblyofmulti‐disciplinaryteams;otherkeyaspectsoftheseteamsarecoordinationandaccountability.Successfulteamsincludeacoordinatororfacilitatorwhopusheseffortsforward,andmemberswhoareaccountabletooneanother,accordingtoaplan.Theworkoftheteamaddressesthesystem’spreventionofandresponsetointimidationaswellashowthesystemrespondstotheneedsofvictimsandwitnesses,protectsvictimsandwitnesses,andprovidesreferralsforservices.Examplesofpreventiveeffortsaremonitoringcourthousespacesandmaintainingconfidentialityofwitnessesduringinvestigation.Examplesofresponsestrategiesincludemonitoringcommunicationstoandfromjails,enforcementofprotectiveorders,specializedpatrolofhomesandworkplacesofhigh‐riskvictimsandwitnesses,electronicmonitoringofdefendants,andrelocationofvictimsandwitnesses.10Thereareavarietyofoptionsthatcanbecustomizedtotherisklevelandneedsofindividualvictimsandwitnesses.

9 WhilepreviousexperiencewithCCRsgivespausetotheinclusionofdefensecounsel,jurisdictionsimplementingthemodelpresentedhereshouldconsiderafullyrepresentativeteamthatincludesdefense.Whereappropriate—andwithconsiderationoftheirethicalresponsibilitiestotheirclients—defensecounselcanprovideimportantinsightintohowthejusticesystemcanensurethesafetyofvictimsandwitnesseswithoutcompromisingthedueprocessrightsofdefendants.Afterall,notalldefendantsareintimidatorsandsomevictimsandwitnessesmayevenbedefendantsinanothercase.Giventheopportunitytobeinvolved,defensecounsel—alongwithotherjusticesystemactors—maylearnhowtheiractionscouldinadvertentlyfacilitateintimidationandwhattheycandotoclosegapsinwitnesssafety.

GiventheongoingadvancesmadebyCriminalJusticeCoordinatingCouncils(CJCCs),thereisreasontobelievethatabroad‐basedpolicyworkgroupthatincludesjudges,prosecutors,defensecounsel,lawenforcementofficers,correctionsofficers,probationofficers,andvictimadvocateswouldsucceed.CJCCshavegainedpopularitythroughoutthecountryandhavebeeninstrumentalineffortsliketheEvidence‐BasedDecision‐MakingInitiativefromtheNationalInstituteofCorrectionsateffectingsustainablesystemsreform.Numerousorganizations,includingJMI,havesupportedandworkedalongsidethesecollaborativeworkgroupstorevampscreeningandassessmentpractices,sentencingprocesses,andservicesavailabletocourt‐involvedindividuals.SeealsoJenniferTrone,LoriCrowder&ChandraYoder,VeraInstituteofJustice,JusticeandSafetyforAll:PromotingDialogueBetweenPublicDefendersandVictimAdvocates(2002),www.vera.org/sites/defaul/files/resources/downloads/Justice_and_safety.pdf(“InNovember2001,agroupof25publicdefendersandvictimadvocatesfromaroundtheUnitedStatesgatheredinChicago.Perhapsforthefirsttime,membersofthetwoprofessionstalkedopenlyabouthowtheyvieweachotherandtheirownwork.”Thisexperienceshowedthataninclusiveteamofadversepartiescancometogethertodispelmythsandfindabalancebetweenadefendant’szealousrepresentationandvictimsafety.)10Changesincourtroom,courthouse,orjailvisitationproceduresthatmayimpacttheinterestsofdefensecounselinprovidingeffectiverepresentationtotheirclientsshouldbeimplementedafteranoticeandcommentperiod,withappropriateconsiderationgiventothoseinterests.

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ


16

Theseresponsesshouldrepresentacontinuumofprotectivestrategiesorasafetynetforvictimsandwitnesses,andneedtobehighlyvisible,communicatingaclearandunwaveringcommitmenttosafety.Anysystemresponseshouldalsoincludeapublicawarenesscampaignaswellaseffortstomaximizetherelationshipbetweencriminaljusticeactorsandthecommunity.Itisimportantthatthecommunityismadeawareoftheseeffortssoastocommunicatetovictimsandwitnessesthatthejusticesystemtakestheirsafetyandotherneedsseriouslyandwilladvocateforthem.Thiscommitmentalsowarnswould‐beperpetratorsthattheywillbepursuedandprosecutedforintimidation.

PracticePrinciple2.Usecommunity‐basedapproachestobuildtrustwithneighborhoodresidentsandtoencouragereportingofinformationaboutcriminalincidentsincludingintimidation.

Oneofthelargestobstaclestocrimereportingandpreventionisthefearofperpetratorsanddistrustofthejusticesystemthatpervadesmanycommunities.Often,thereisafearofretributionforreportingtoorcooperatingwithpolice(e.g.,“snitchesgetstitches”).Furthermore,someneighborhoodshavewidespreadanimosityorhostilitybetweenresidentsandjusticesystemactors,suchaslawenforcement.Bridgingthegapbetweenthejusticesystemandthecommunitiesitserveshasproventoadvancetheinterestsofvictimsandwitnesses,thecriminaljusticesystem,andthecommunityasawhole.Someindicatorsofaneffectivewitnesssafetyprograminclude:

Communitypolicingandprosecution Continualoutreachtoparents,guardians,andotheradultswhoareoftenfirst

informedaboutyouthgangviolenceandintimidation Easilyaccessibleconfidentialchannelsforreportingcrimeorinformationabout

crimes Languageandculturalskillsamonglawenforcementappropriatelymatchedtothe

communitiesserved Ongoingcommunityeducationandcommunityorganizationeffortsthatbring

togethermembersofthecommunitywithrepresentativesoflawenforcement.Communitypolicingandprosecutionprinciplesarecentralhere.Focusingonpositiveinteractionswithcommunitymembers,openinguplinesofmeaningfulcommunicationwithresidents,partneringwithresidentsandlocalorganizations,andmakingcriminaljusticeworktransparentandopentoresidentsareallprovenmethodsforbuildingtrust.

PracticePrinciple3.Educatevictimsandwitnessesaboutwitnessintimidation.

Victimsandwitnesseswhoareeducatedaboutintimidationwillbemorepreparedtoavoidorrespondtoitfromthestart.Offenderswillattempttoexploittheirfear,reluctanceorembarrassmentorattempttocontrolthembyinstillingguiltorexploitingfeelingsofloyalty.Oneofthemosteffectivestrategiesforfacilitatingtheidentification,prevention,andprosecutionofintimidationistoprovideinformationtovulnerablevictimsandwitnessesaboutwhatintimidationcanlooklikeandwhenitmighthappen.Educatingandempoweringvictimsandwitnessesismorethanaone‐timeevent.Justicesystemactorsshouldhaveregulardialogueswithvictimsandwitnessesaboutsafetyandwithpartnerstoremoveormitigateobstaclestosafety.Whenstrategizingaboutreportingintimidationandaccessingavailableservices,itisimportanttoprovideoptionsandsupportbutequallyimportanttoconsiderthevictim’sorwitness’swishesandconcernsindecidingthebestwaytoproceed.

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ


17

Questionsthesedialoguescanaddressearlyandoftenare:

Whatiswitnessintimidation?Whatformsdoesittake?Whatdoestheintimidatorwant?

Whatisevidenceofwitnessintimidationandhowshouldevidencebepreserved? HowandtowhomshouldIreportwitnessintimidation? HowcanIprotectmyselffromintimidation? Whatresourcesareavailabletomeforhelp,advice,counseling,etc.? Howdoesthecriminaljusticesystemwork?WhatcanIexpect?

PracticePrinciple4.Equipcriminaljusticeleadershipandstaffwithanoperationalknowledgeofintimidationandsafety.

Anoperationalknowledgeofvictimandwitnessintimidationmeansthatcriminaljusticeleadersandpractitionersunderstandthedynamicsofwitnessintimidation–whatitlookslikeandhowtodocumentincidents–aswellaseffectiveresponses.Practitionersshoulddeveloporidentifyexistingstrategiesforcounselingvictimsandwitnesses,forconnectingthemwithresponsiveandreliableservices,andforgatheringtheinformationnecessarytotakelegalactionwhenappropriate.Someindividualsmaynotseethemselvesasvictims,whileothersaredeeplydependentontheperpetrator’sincomeorprotection,orbecausethatpersonistheironlylifelineinthecommunityorinthecountry.Considerthecasesofimmigrantsvictimizedinhumantraffickingcasesortheclosetedpartnerinanabusivesame‐sexrelationshiportheyounggangmemberinagang‐dominatedneighborhood.Thesesituationsareallpotentialscenariosinwhichvictimorwitnessintimidationcanoccurandrequiringacomprehensiveresponsefromlawenforcement,prosecutors,courtsecurity,judges,victimadvocates,andothers.Aworkingknowledgeofhowtoidentifyandrespondtointimidation–tobothassistvictims/witnessesandtopursueprosecution–characterizeseffectivepreventioneffortsandsystemresponsetointimidationthatwillimprovepublicsafety.ThefirsttoolforpractitionerstoassesstheirunderstandingandprogressindevelopingaresponsetointimidationcanbefoundininAppendixC,RubrictoAssessOperationalKnowledgeofVictimandWitnessSafetyAmongCriminalJusticePractitioners.Thistool,designedasarubric,11describesareasofknowledgethatpractitionersmusthaveinordertobeeffectivepartnersinsafetyefforts.Eachareaofknowledgeisdescribedwithanaccompanyingscaletomeasureunderstanding.

PracticePrinciple5.Maintainconsistentteamofcriminaljusticeactorsthatworkswithvictimsandwitnessestobuildtrustandrespondholisticallytotheirneeds.

Trustbetweenvictimsandwitnessesandthecriminaljusticesystemiscriticaltotheeffectiveadministrationofjustice.Bymaintainingconsistentstaff,(e.g.,police,prosecutors,

11Rubricshavegainedpopularityasusefultoolstoclearlycommunicatestandardsofpracticeandtoconcretelydescribelevelsofperformance.Theyarenormativeinthattheydefinetheexpectationsforeffectivepracticesforpromotingwitnesssafety.Theyarealsoformativeinthattheyhelppractitionersandleadersbetterunderstandwhateffectivepracticelookslikeandgivethemthetoolstoaccuratelyassesstheirownperformance.TherubricinAppendixCisdesignedtobeusedwithindividualstafffromkeystakeholdergroups,suchas911operators,policeofficers,prosecutors,victimadvocates,courtsecurity,etc.

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ


18

victimserviceproviders)teamsareabletoreportbetterresultsincludingthatvictimsandwitnessesfeelsafer,intimidationisreportedmorereadily,andcooperationwithprosecutionismoreconsistent.Victimsandwitnessesoftenfindthemselveswithadiminishedornon‐existentsupportnetworkasaresultofcomingforwardtoreportacrimeorcooperatingwiththeprosecution.Theymayneedtemporaryhousingandincomesupport.Theymayalsoneedotherservicessuchashealthcareforphysicalinjuries,mentalhealthcounselingandtreatment,andcrisisintervention.Victimsandwitnessesmayhavechildren,elderlyfamilymembers,orpetswhoarethreatenedandwhomaythereforealsorequireservices.Asmuchaspossible,victimsandwitnessesshouldbeinteractingwiththesameinvestigators,prosecutors,andadvocatesthroughouttheircases,ratherthanbeingshuffledthroughasuccessionofnewlyassignedstaff.12Regulartwo‐waycommunicationbuildstrustovertime,asstaffcheckinaboutsafety,makeservicesavailableasneeded,andexplaintheadjudicationprocessandchangesincasestatus.Victimsandwitnessesbenefitfromtimelyandaccuratecommunicationaboutmajorcaseevents,suchasreleasestatusandcourtproceedings.Thesecommunicationscanbecombinedwithongoingsafetyplanningwithvictimsandwitnessessothattheyareactivelyengagedinsafetyeffortsinsteadoffeelingdisempoweredandoverwhelmedbythem.Ensuringconsistentinteractionbetweenvictims/witnessesandwell‐trainedpractitionerscentraltoasuccessfulsystemresponsetointimidation.

PracticePrinciple6.Usebothobjectiveassessmentsandinputfromvictimsandwitnessestodetermineriskofandvulnerabilitytointimidation.Usetheassessmentsandinputtoinformwitnesssafetyefforts.

Manyjurisdictionsarefacedwithlimitedresourcesandothersignificantchallengestoprotectingvictimsandwitnesses.Nonetheless,somejurisdictionshavelearnedhowtoallocateavailableresourcesinstrategicwaystocreatesystem‐widesafetymeasures.Thesestrategiesincludemoretargetedinterventions,suchasincreasedpatrolsorrelocationinhigh‐needsituations.Assessmentofthreatstosafetyorriskofintimidationshouldbemadeearlyandoften.Earlythreatassessmentisimportantbecausevictimsandwitnessesarepotentiallyatriskassoonastheyreportacrime.Frequentreassessmentrecognizesthatriskisdynamicandcanincreaseordecreaseovertimeandasconditionschange.Manyjusticesystemactorsalreadyassessriskusingtheirprofessionaljudgment.Whiletheirexperienceisinvaluable,researchhasconsistentlyshownthatprofessionaljudgmentisfarmoreeffectivewhenpairedwithobjectiveassessmentsofrisk.Objectiveassessmentshelptoensurethoroughness,preventaprofessional’sindividualassumptionsfrominterfering,andallowforallstaff–regardlessofexperiencelevel–toprovidethenecessaryprotectiontoallvictimsandwitnesses.Theperceptionofthevictimorwitnessisanothercriticalcomponentofriskassessment.Thevictim’sorwitness’spersonalperceptionofrisk

12Inofficeswhereverticalprosecutionisnotpossible,orwhereunavoidablestaffingchangesdemandthatacasebetransferredtoanewprosecutor,investigator,oradvocate,itisimportantforoutgoingstafftocarefullydocumentinthecasefileallinformationpertinenttothesafetyofvictimsandwitnesses,andtoreviewthisinformationwithnewlyassignedstafftobesureitisunderstood.Wherepossible,apersonalintroductiontothenewstaffassumingresponsibilityforthecasewillhelptoreassurethevictimorwitnessthatnewlyassignedstaffarecommittedtomaintainingthesamehighlevelofattentiontosafetyneeds.

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ


19

shouldbeweighedheavilyinconjunctionwiththeobjectiveassessmentandtheprofessional’sownjudgment.Threatassessmenttoolshavebeendevelopedandvalidatedforuseindomesticviolencecases—amongthemtheSpousalAssaultRiskAssessmentGuide(SARA),MOSAIC,theDangerAssessment,andtheOntarioDomesticAssaultRiskAssessment(ODARA).13However,similarlyvalidatedtoolsspecificallydesignedtoassesstheriskofintimidationinothertypesofcaseshavenotyetbeendeveloped.14Investigatorsandprosecutorsoftenconductinformalthreatassessmentingangcasesbaseduponknownriskfactors,suchastheproximityofrelationshipamongindividuals,theresidenceofwitnessesinagang‐dominatedneighborhood,andprevioushistoryofviolenceamongtheperpetrators.Justicesystempractitionersshouldleveragethetoolsthatareavailable,experimentwiththesekindsofassessmentstoadaptthemtoinstancesofintimidation,andcontinuetomonitoremergingresearchinthefield.Anintimidationassessmenttoolshouldincludeanumberoffactors,mostsignificantlyanypreviouspatternsofintimidationandviolencebytheaccused,anyescalationofintimidationorthreat,andclosenessorintimacyoftherelationshipbetweenthevictim/witnessandoffender.Topromoteevaluationofriskasearlyintheprocessaspossible,considerbeginningwithbasicscreeningsandfollowinguplaterintheprocesswithmorethoroughassessments.Regardlessoftheassessmentmethodused,itiscrucialtoactupontheresults.Systemsshouldreactswiftlyandappropriatelybasedonassessments,strategicallyprovidingtimelyservicesforinterventionandprotection.

PracticePrinciple7.Createinformation‐sharingpoliciesthatlinkjusticesystemactorsandallowthemtoidentifypatternsofbehaviorandpossibleintimidationinindividualcases.

Intimidationisa“patterned”crime–perpetratorsintimidateinmultiplewaysandrepeatedlyovertimeandoftenacrossrelationships.Therefore,understandingpastbehaviorbecomesasimportantasunderstandingpresentbehaviorwhengaugingtheseriousnessofintimidationandtryingtopredictfuturethreatsandactions.Effectivewitnesssafetyprogramshavethecapacitytoidentifyanddocumentwitnessintimidationandtoprovidesystempractitionerswithseamlessaccesstopreviouscomplaintsbyorinvolvingthesamepeople.Ideally,911staff,lawenforcement,prosecutors,corrections,courtsecurity/courtadministration,andprobation/parolewouldbeableseecomplaintsofintimidationovertimeforasingleindividualinordertoassesstheescalationofathreat.Thisinformationshouldfollowvictims,witnesses,anddefendants,throughoutacase,ensuringthateveryonewhotouchesitandinteractswiththepartiesunderstandsthesafetyconcerns.Accessibilityandtimelinessofinformationisparticularlycrucialascasesand

13P.RandallKropp,StephenD.Hart,ChristopherD.Webster,DerekEaves,SARASpousalAssaultRiskAssessmentGuide,MULTI‐HEALTHSYSTEMS,INC.(MHS),http://www.mhs.com/product.aspx?gr=saf&prod=sara&id=overview(lastvisitedJuly17,2013);MOSAICTHREATASSESSMENTSSYSTEMS,https://www.mosaicmethod.com(lastvisitedJuly16,2013);DANGERASSESSMENT,http://www.dangerassessment.org(lastvisitedJuly16,2013);NOVASCOTIAPUBLICPROSECUTIONSERVICE,RISKASSESSMENTS(ODARA)INSPOUSAL/PARTNERVIOLENCECASES(2009),http://www.gov.ns.ca/pps/publications/ca_manual/ProsecutionPolicies/ODARA%20RISK%20ASSESSMENTS%20IN%20SPOUSALPARTNER%20CASES%20ALL.pdf. 14TheUnitedNationsOfficeonDrugsandCrimehasproposedsimilarfactorstobeconsideredinassessingrisktovictimsofhumantrafficking,butthattoolalsohasnotyetbeenvalidated.

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ


20

peoplechangecourtvenuesandconfinementfacilities,orwhennewpersonnelassumeresponsibilityforacase.Thesearethetimeswhenlapsesincommunicationandaccesstoinformationoccur,andvictimsandwitnessesmaybemostvulnerabletointimidation.Aslocalteamsexploretheexpansionofinformationsharing,newinformationaboutlimitationsandobstacleswillariseandnewsafetyconcernswillsurface.15Whereitisnotpossibletolinkagencydatabases,asdescribedabove,systemscanconsideraninformation‐sharingnetwork.Forexample,Duluth,MinnesotadevelopedtheDomesticAbuseInformationNetwork(DAIN),togetaroundtheimpossibilityoftryingtoforceeveryone’sdatabasestoshare.16Instead,DAINisonedatabasethateveryonecanaccessthatincludesinformationoncasehistory,risk,intimidation,andmore.Still,creatinganotherdatabaseforpractitionerstousemaynotbethemostefficientwaytotrackintimidationanditmaynotbefeasibleforsomejurisdictions.Thecriticalpiece,thatcannotbeoveremphasized,isthevalueofinter‐agencyandsystem‐widecommunication.Evenwhereresourcesareextremelylimited,anopendialoguebetweenjusticesystemandcommunityactorsshouldbemaintained.Thesafetyofvictimsandwitnessesdependsonaccurateandcurrentinformation,sothateachsystemactorcanmakethebest‐informedsafetydecisions.

PracticePrinciple8.Makeallreasonableeffortstominimizecontactbetweenvictims/witnessesanddefendantsthroughoutthejusticesystemprocess.

Physicallyseparatingvictimsandwitnessesfrompotentialthreatsthroughouttheinvestigation,adjudication,andpost‐convictionprocessisoneofthebeststrategiesforpreventingintimidationandensuringsafety.Investigationsandinterviewsshouldbecarriedoutinawaythatavoidsmakingvictimsandwitnessesvulnerabletointimidationandretaliation.Theyshouldbeprivateandinformationshouldbekeptconfidential,whereallowableundertherulesofdiscovery.Systemactorsshouldcommunicatewithvictimsandwitnessesinwaysthatprotecttheiridentitiesanddonotexposeorbroadcasttheircooperationtotheaccused,totheirfamilyandfriends,ortothecommunityatlarge.Forexample,policeinvestigatorsmaymeetwitnessesoutsideoftheirneighborhoodsorinplainclothestogatherinformation.Additionalstrategiessuccessfulinminimizingcontactbetweenvictims/witnessesanddefendantsinclude:settinghighbailandseekingpreventivedetentionwhereallowablebylaw;usingwitnessprotectionprograms,orotherwiserelocatingvictimsandwitnesses;17andissuingandenforcingno‐contactorders.Judicialofficersshouldconsiderthewishesofvictimsandwitnessesinadditiontootherinformationaboutsafetyrisksandpotentialescalationofintimidationandthreats.No‐contactordersshouldhaveclearconditions,and

15Newsafetyconcernscanarisefrominformationsharing,however.Forexample,incasesperpetratedbylawenforcementofficersorindividualswhoworkwiththecourtsystem,andincasesoncollegecampuses,orinmilitarysettings,unsafeinformationsharingcanbedangerous.Practitionerssharinginformation,inanyform,shouldbeextremelycautiousnottoputvictimsandwitnessesatfurtherrisk.16FormoreinformationonDAIN,seeDomesticAbuseInterventionPrograms,www.theduluthmodel.org(lastvisitedAug.1,2013).17Temporaryhousing,suchasdomesticviolenceshelters,mayalsobeusedasshort‐termsolutionsindomesticviolencecases,andforcasesoncollegecampuses,changesinclassschedulesandcampushousingrelocationmayaffordsufficientseparationoftheparties.Inanycase,thewishesofthevictimorwitnessshouldbeconsideredbeforerelocation,ass/hewillbeartheburdenofadjustingtoanewroutineandenvironment.

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ


21

appropriateresourcescommittedtotheirenforcementsothatconsequencesforviolationsareswiftandcertain.

Jailandprisonstaffalsoplaykeyrolesinminimizingcontactbycooperatingwithrequeststoblockcallsfrominmatestovictimsorwitnessesandbymonitoringallformsofcommunicationinhigh‐riskcases.Casesmaybecharacterizedashigh‐riskbasedonathreatassessment,onactionsorcommunicationsobservedbycorrectionsstafforinformants,oronincidentsreportedbyvictimsorwitnesses.Whentheaccusedandthevictimorwitnessarebothdetainedinthesamefacility(eitherpretrialorpost‐conviction),facilitystaffshouldquicklyidentifythesesituationsandtakeappropriatesafetymeasures,whichalwaysincludesphysicalseparation.Somejurisdictionshavetakenless‐traditionalapproachestoensurevictimandwitnesssafety.Inresponsetointimidationingang‐relatedcases,somecourtshavecreatedaspecialdockettoexpediteveryhigh‐riskcasesinordertominimizetheamountoftimevictimsandwitnessesareexposedtothreats.Evenwithoutaspecialdocket,prosecutorscanrequestthatthesecasesbeprioritized.Policeinvestigatorsandprosecutorsmaytaketheadditionalstepsofsecuringstatementsquicklyandearlyviarecordingsand/orsignedstatementstoprotectagainstrecantationandfailedprosecutions.Whereasinglestrategyisinsufficient,programscanuseappropriatecombinationsofthesestrategies,basedonthelevelofrisk,toprotectvictimsandwitnesses.

PracticePrinciple9.Createasafespaceincourthouses.

Unfortunately,nocriminaljusticesystemcanstopallintimidationfromtakingplace.Whattheycandoismakesafespacesforvictimsandwitnesses.Courthousesareonespacewherejusticesystemscanreasonablyexertasufficientlevelofcontrolandensurethatcourthouses,includingcourtrooms,hallways,entrances,andgrounds,arefreefromthreats–bothovertandimplicit.Aswithalloftheseprinciples,differentcommunitieswillemploydifferentstrategiestocreatesafecourthouses.Thestrategiesofferedherewillnotworkineverycommunity,buttheydoillustratesomeofthecreativewaysthatcriminaljusticesystemscanensurevictimandwitnesssafety.Examplesofwhatothercommunitieshavedoneinclude:

Signageandliteraturesettinggroundrulesforbehaviorandpenaltiesforintimidation

Activeandvisiblesecuritywhoidentify,report,andtrackpatternsofintimidation

Securityscreeningofallenteringcourt(e.g.,metaldetectors,temporaryphoneconfiscation)

Prohibitingrecordingorphotographyofvictimsandwitnessesinthecourthouse

Courtroomandcourthousecheck‐ins,inordertoidentifyandseparatevictimsandprosecutionwitnessesfromdefendantsanddefensewitnesses

Securewaitingareasforvictimsandwitnesses Regularbriefingsofcourtpersonnelregardinghigh‐riskcasesandindividuals Videomonitoringinpublicspacesand/orcourtrooms

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ


22

PracticePrinciple10.Tracktheprogressandoutcomesofeffortsandusethatinformationtoinformsystemimprovement.

Justicesystemsmustbeabletoobtain,understand,andintegrateinformationrelatedtovictimandwitnessintimidationinordertomaximizesafety.Whetheroperatingunderanewlydevelopedcoordinatedcriminaljusticeresponseteamorasindividuals,practitionersmustprioritizeeffortstocollectinformationandtouseittotrackeffectivenessandrefinesafetystrategies.Therearemanysourcesofinformationincludinginterviewsandfocusgroupswithstaff,victims,andwitnesses;observingjusticesystemprocesses;reviewsandanalysesofcasereportsandfiles;andregularreportsfromagencydatabasesandintegratedinformationsystems.Itisalsoimportanttogaugethepublicattitudeaboutcooperatingwithpoliceandifcommunitymembersfeeltheywouldbeprotectediftheybecameinvolvedinacriminalcase.Informationthatcanbeusedtoinformevolvingstrategiesthatcanbecollectedoveraperiodoftime:

Numberofarrestsforintimidation Numberofchargesandprosecutionsforintimidation(includingtrendsincharge

reduction) Exposureofvictimsandwitnessestovulnerabilitiesinthecriminaljusticesystem

(basedonthegapsidentifiedhere)andchangestothatexposure Prevalenceofunprosecutedreportsofcrime Prevalenceofstatementrecantation Prevalenceofdismissedprosecutionsduetowitnessnon‐cooperation Victim,witness,andcommunityresidentattitudestowardsafetyandcapacityof

criminaljusticesystemtoprotectthemandhowthoseattitudeschangeInterpretinginformationthatiscollectedanddiscerningtrendsisnotsimple.Bepreparedtofindthat,asnewsafetyeffortsareintroduced,thenumberofidentifiedincidentsofintimidationmayactuallybeincreasedduetothefactthatindividualswhowouldnothavepreviouslyfeltcomfortablereportingthreatsarenowcomingforward.Evenasthenumberstaperoff,practitionerscanlooktocase‐by‐casesuccesseswherevictimsandwitnessessafelyreport,cooperatewithinvestigationsandtestifyattrial,andcontinuetoidentifyareasforimprovement.

CONCLUSION

Thesebestpracticesprinciplesprovideanexcitingopportunityforjurisdictionstotakeaholisticapproachtovictimandwitnesssafety.Thisapproachtakesastepbeyondcreatingsafetyprogramswithalimitedreachornarrowfocus,tothepromiseofasafercommunityasawhole,withquantifiableresults.Nonetheless,thegnawingquestionthatremains,forleadershipinparticularis,“Howdowepayforallofthis?”Whilethereisnoeasyanswer,theapproachpresentedheredoesnotanticipatethatallchangeswilloccursimultaneouslyorthatallwillhavecostsattached.Onthecontrary,theseprinciplesprovidebenchmarksagainstwhichsystemscanassesstheirstrengthsandchallengesandmakestrategicdecisionsaboutwhereneedsarethehighest.Justasmanyjusticesystemshavefoundcreativewaystoreallocateandreinvestscarceresourcesintocommunitypolicingstrategies,

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ


23

sotoowillsystemsdiscovernovelapproachestointegratethesebestpracticeprinciplesinpreventingandrespondingtowitnessintimidation.Asjurisdictionsassesstheirresponses,theymayfindareasofduplicationoropportunitiestoshareinformationthatcanresultincostsavings.Still,therearesomeoptionsforfunding.TheOfficeonViolenceAgainstWomen,theOfficeonCommunityOrientedPolicingServices,theBureauofJusticeAssistance,theNationalInstituteofJustice,andmanyotherfederalandstateagencies,private‐publicpartnershipsandfoundationsofferfundingfortheimplementationofresearch‐informedpractices.18ThisResourcepresentsanadvantageforsystemslookingtoenhancetheirsafetyresponses.Itprovidesamodelformeasuringsuccessanddocumentingprogress,whichisoftenimportantforattractingprivateandpublicresources.Evenso,eachcriminaljusticesystemmustdecideforitselfwhattheseprinciplesmeanfortheirsystemsandhowtoshapetheirsafetynetsforvictimsandwitnesses.

18See,e.g.,GRANTS.GOV,www.grants.gov(lastvisitedAug.22,2013);Funding,NAT’LINSTITUTEOFJUSTICE,http://www.nij.gov/funding/welcome.htm(lastvisitedAug.12,2013);GrantPrograms,THEDEP’TOFJUSTICE,OFFICEONVIOLENCEAGAINSTWOMEN,http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/ovwgrantprograms.htm(lastvisitedAug.17,2013);Funding,OFFICEOFJUSTICEPROGRAMS,BUREAUOFJUSTICEASSISTANCE,https://www.bja.gov/funding.aspx(lastvisitedAug.17,2013).

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ


24

PartIII.ImplementingChange:AProcessforWitnessSafetyAssessmentandImprovement

Aremainingchallengetowitnesssafetyishowtoapplylessonslearnedfromresearchintoreal‐lifepractice.Sofarinthispublication,wehavedefinedbothaconceptualmodelforquantifyingtheprevalenceofintimidationandasetofbestpracticeprinciplespromotingvictimandwitnesssafetyinthejusticesystemandthecommunity.Thistranslationofresearchintopracticeshapesvictims’andwitnesses’experiencesandmakesitsaferforthemtoreportcrimesandparticipateinthecriminaljusticeprocess.PartIIIofthisResourcediscussesthemethodologyforimplementingthischange.ThemethodologypresentedbelowisinformedbytheexperiencesoftheImprovingtheJusticeSystemResponsetoWitnessIntimidation(IWI)initiativeandiscomprisedofsixactionstepsthatusethebestpracticeprinciplestoguidedevelopmentofacomprehensiveandcoordinatedresponsetovictimandwitnessintimidation.Theactionsteps,discussedingreaterdetailbelow,are:

1. Ensurethatthejusticesystemhasthecapacitytochange2. Conveneanactionteamtoguidetheassessmentandleadtheimplementation3. Definethecurrentstateofvictimandwitnesssafety4. Compareexistingpracticetobestpractices5. Developandimplementanactionableplan6. Monitor,evaluate,andimprovevictimandwitnesssafetyefforts

BACKGROUNDONMETHODOLOGY

IWIwasthelaunchingpointtodefiningthismethodologyforimplementingchangeinhowjusticesystemsrespondtointimidation.From2010‐2013,AEquitasreceivedfundingfromtheU.S.DepartmentofJustice,OfficeofJusticePrograms,BureauofJusticeAssistancetoworkwiththreesites–Duluth,Minnesota;Knoxville,Tennessee;andSanDiego,California–toevaluatetheirsystems’responsestowitnessintimidation.19IWI’sworkwiththesesiteswaslargelydefinedbytheSafetyandAccountabilityAudit,createdandusedbyPraxisInternationaltoexaminejusticesystemsandotherinstitutions’responsestodomesticviolence.ThePraxisSafetyandAccountabilityAudit,developedbyEllenPence,isanapplicationofethnographicworktodomesticviolence.IthasbeenusedinnearlyahundredcommunitiesthroughouttheUnitedStatestoevaluatetheirresponsetodomesticviolencebyexamininghowtheworkroutinesofcriminaljusticepractitionersaccountforvictimsafetyandoffenderaccountability.However,IWImayrepresenttheAudit’sfirstapplicationtovictimandwitnesssafetyacrossdifferenttypesofcrime.ThethreeauditsconductedunderIWIweresuccessfulatidentifyingvulnerabilitiesandgapsinthejusticesystemwherevictimsandwitnesseswerebeingintimidated.Onelesson,however,wasthatthesitesneededsupporttotranslatetheirfindingsandrecommendationsfromtheauditsinto

19TheJusticeManagementInstituteservedasevaluatorandadvisortotheinitiative.

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ


25

action.20Thislessonisechoedinanunrelatedreviewofsafetyauditsconductedin2010byDr.LucillePopeforPraxisInternational.Dr.Popeencouragedfutureauditteamstoengageexplicitlyinactionplanningtotranslatefindingsandrecommendationsintoresponsestothegapsuncovered.Shestated,“TheAuditisthoughtofasadistinctandseparateeventdisconnectedfromimplementation.Approachingtheauditasaprocessofreflectionandactiontoimprovesafetyandaccountabilityiskeytosuccessfulimplementation.”21AEquitasandJMIthereforeprovidedadditionalsupporttoeachsite’steamtodevelopactionplansandtomonitortheimplementationofspecificresponsestothegapstheyidentified.Asaresult,itbecameclearthattherewasaneedtodefineaprocessforchange.PartIIIdescribestheprocessandhowtodefineandmonitorimplementation.ACTIONSTEP1.ENSURETHATTHEJUSTICESYSTEMHASTHECAPACITYTOCHANGE

Manyjurisdictionsareill‐equippedtoensurethesafetyofvictimsandwitnesses.Withinthejusticesystem,therearenumerousgapswherevictimsandwitnessescanbe,andoftenare,threatened,manipulated,emotionallyabused,andphysicallyattacked.Tobuildaneffectivejusticesystemresponsetointimidation,currentpracticesmustchange.Thesystemcanaccomplishthischangebyidentifyinghoweffectivelyitprotectsvictimsandwitnessesandthentakingmeaningfulactiontoenhanceitsresponsesandclosegaps.22Thefirststepistoensurethatthesystemhasthecapacitytochange.Assessingcapacity23canbeahelpfulwayforsystemstoidentifyareasofstrengthandareaswhereconsultation,technicalassistance,orothersupportanddevelopmentmaybeneeded.AppendixDprovidesatoolforpractitionerstousewhenmeasuringreadinesstochangethatfocusesonacommonsetofindicators.24Therearefourmajorindicatorsrepresented:

1. Communityandorganizationalclimatethatfacilitateschange,2. Currentattitudesandeffortstowardvictimandwitnesssafety,3. Commitmenttochange,and4. Capacitytoimplementchange.

Withinthesefour,thereareadditionalindicatorsthatrangefromthecollectiveefficacyoftheworkingteamtotheskillsandknowledgeoftheindividualsinvolvedintheeffortstochange.Theseindicatorsemphasizetheimportanceofcollaborationandinvestment,notonlyamongleadershipbutalsoamongpractitioners.Withoutthesebasicingredients,ajusticesystemcannoteffectandsustainchange.Technicalassistanceprovidersandjusticesystemslookingtodevelopwitnesssafetyreformareadvisedtotakethetimetoassessreadinesstochangeandtobuildcapacitywhereitmayneedimprovement.Unliketheimplementationofaprogramwithlimitedscope,systemicwitnesssafetyresponsesarecomplexandrequirebroadconsensusandcooperation.Systemleadersaremostsuccessfulatimplementingsustainablechangewhentheyinvesttimeinbuildingthenecessaryrelationshipsandsystemiccapacitytoidentifyandresolveproblemscreatively.

20LUCILLEPOPE,IMPLEMENTATIONOFSAFETYAUDITRECOMMENDATIONS,PRAXISINT’L(Mar.2010),http://www.praxisinternational.org/files/praxis/files/Safety%20Audits/TTAImplementationSurveyJune2011.pdf.21Id.at8.22Thisapproachisbasedontheleadershiptheoryknownas“changemanagement.”23Oftencalled“readinesstochange.”24SeeAppendixBforadditionaltools.

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ


26

ACTIONSTEP2.CONVENEANACTIONTEAMTOGUIDETHEASSESSMENTANDLEADIMPLEMENTATION

Bringingtogetheradiverse,interdisciplinarygroupofstakeholderstoengageintheprocessofanalysisandchangeisessentialtosuccessfulimplementationofchange.Becausetheaimistobuildacoordinatedsystemresponse,leadershipfromeachkeystakeholdergroupinthecriminaljusticesystemmustbeincluded.This“actionteam”maycometogetherspecificallyforthepurposeofengaginginthewitnesssafetysystemsanalysisoritmayalreadyexist,suchasintheformofacriminaljusticecoordinatingcouncilormulti‐disciplinarytaskforce.Whereanorganizationalreadyexists,itmaybebeneficialtostartfromthatfoundation.Oneofthebiggestchallengestoimplementingawitnesssafetyprogramislimitedresources,soestablishedrelationshipsthatallowstakeholderstosharestaffandresourceswillbehelpfulinfacilitatingswiftresults.Thevictimandwitnesssafetyanalysisbeginswiththeactionteam’ssharedunderstandingofwitnesssafety,whichinvolvesbuildingconsensusaroundthefollowingthreemajorsetsofquestions:

1. Whatdoesthelatestresearchandpracticeliteraturerevealaboutthenatureofvictimandwitnessintimidation?Whataretheemergingtrends?

2. Howdowedefineintimidationinourcommunity?Whatarethebehaviorsweneedtotargetinoureffortstopreventandrespondtointimidation?Whatbehaviorsdoweagreenecessitatecriminaljusticeinterventionatsomelevel?

3. Whomdoesourwitnesssafetysystemprotect?Howdoesoursystemdefinea“victim”or“witness”?

Consensusbuildingmaybefacilitatedinternally,althoughsomejurisdictionsmayfindithelpfultohaveanoutsidefacilitator–independentofthesystem–toguidetheexerciseinaretreatsetting.Whilesomeofthesequestionsmayseembasic,theyareimportanttoaskasteammembersoftenunderestimatethedegreetowhichthey’vemadeassumptionsabouthowtheircolleagueswillanswer.Thesequestionsaremorethanboilerplate;theyarefundamentaltothedefinitionandassessmentofcommunitysafety.Raisingandresolvingassumptionsearlyintheprocesshelpstoavoidconfusionandconflictlater.Italsoprovidesabenchmarkforassessingsuccessandprogressandwhatkindsofresponsesarenecessary.Thesequestionswilllikelyberevisitedthroughouttheprocess;suchreflectionisimportantovertime.Whatiskeyisthattheteammaintainsasharedunderstandingofwitnesssafety.ACTIONSTEP3.DEFINETHECURRENTSTATEOFVICTIMANDWITNESSSAFETY

Onceconvened,theactionteamshouldlaunchintothenexttaskofdetermininghowsafevictimsandwitnessesareintheirjurisdiction.This“asis”assessmentsetsthestartingpointagainstwhichtheteamwillgaugeitsprogressandthesuccessofitsworkinthefuture.Theaim,ofcourse,istodevelopacriminaljusticesystemthatissaferforvictimsandwitnessesthanwhentheactionteambeganitswork.Makingthatdeterminationrequiresaquantifiableunderstandingofwherethesystembegins.Wehavealreadyacknowledgedthatintimidationisdifficulttoquantify.Figure1,theConceptualModelofPrevalenceofIntimidation,providesaframeworkforquantifyingvictimandwitnessintimidationbydistinguishingtwothings:“opportunitiesforintimidation”andthe“documentedincidenceofintimidation.”25 25Suprap.15.

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ


27

Determining“opportunitiesforintimidation”PartIIprovidedavisualrepresentationofthecriminaljusticeprocessthathighlightscommon“opportunitiesforintimidation”andprovidesthebasisforActionStep3.26SeeFigure2.MapofCommonOpportunitiesforIntimidationandGapsinVictimandWitnessSafety.Theactionteamshouldworktodeterminewhereitbelievesvulnerabilitieslieinitsjurisdiction.Itshouldalsovalidateitsassessmentwithotherpractitionersandvictimsandwitnesses.Validationhelpsensurethattheprocessmapandcharacterizationof“opportunitiesforintimidation”capturerealexperiencesofpeopleinvolvedinthesystem(ratherthananidealizedversionofeventsorsystemresponses).Thisinclusiveprocessalsohelpstobuildinvestmentinthewitnesssafetyworkandcommunicatestheleadership’scommitmenttoensuringthatvictimsandwitnessesareprotected.Atoolforthisprocess,aProtocolforassessingandquantifying“opportunitiesforintimidation”appearsatAppendixE.Thisprotocolisbasedonthemapofthecriminaljusticeprocess(Figure2)andtheopportunitiesforintimidationthatmatchupwiththem(e.g.,identitiesofinformantsnotbeingkeptconfidential,interviewsbeingtakeninpresenceofallegedperpetrators,ongoingre‐assessmentofriskisnottakingplace,etc.).Foreachstageandopportunityforintimidationthereisascaletomeasureprevalence:1)neverhappens;2)sometimeshappens;3)oftenhappens;and4)alwayshappens.Theactionteam–alongwithfocusgroupsofpractitioners,victims,andwitnesses27–canusethistooltocometoaconsensusaboutsafetygapsandhowtheyareaddressedbyscoringeachopportunityforintimidationonthefour‐pointscalethatcharacterizesthedegreetowhichitispresentintheirsystem.Scoresfromallgroupswillthenbeconsideredintheaggregatetoidentifysystemvulnerabilities.Byincludingmultipleperspectives,theanalysisismorelikelytopinpointtruevulnerabilities.FacilitatorsmayalsowanttohavefocusgroupssummarizetheiroverallperspectivesofthestagesidentifiedinAppendixE.Thesesummariesmaybehelpfulinquicklyflaggingstagesthatareparticularlyvulnerable.Anexampleofascaleforthesesummaries:

1–nosafetymeasuresinplace;intimidationcaneasilyhappenunhampered2–minimalsafetymeasuresinplace;overtintimidationmaybepartiallyaddressedorprevented3–moderatesafetymeasuresinplace;overtintimidationisaddressedandprevented;otherformsofintimidationmaybepartiallyaddressed4–highlyeffectivesafetymeasuresinplace;intimidationisextremelyunlikely

Oncethefocusgroupsarecompleted,theactionteamreviewsthescoresofeachgroupandsummarizesthefindings.Again,aggregatingthesescoreshelpshomeinonthevulnerabilitiesorintimidation“opportunities”inthesystem.Ifthereareareasofwidedisparityamongfocusgroups,theactionteammaywanttoprioritizetheseareasforfurtherinvestigationthroughprocessobservation,forinstance.

26Generally,acriminaljusticesystem’sprocessmapwillbequitesimilartothegenericrepresentationofferedinthispublication,buttheactionteamshouldcertainlyreviseittodepictaccuratelyitsownsystem.27Relativelyrecentvictimsandwitnessesarebesttoparticipateinthisprocess,becausetheirexperienceswillbereflectiveofcurrentpractices.

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ


28

Determining“documentedincidenceofwitnessintimidation”Thesecondpartofthisassessmentinvolvesdocumentingtheprevalenceofreported28intimidation.Reportsofintimidationcanhappenatanypointinthecriminaljusticeprocess.Onemeasureofprevalenceisthenumberofcaseswhereintimidationischargedcriminally.However,thismeasurefocusesonlyontheadjudicationstageandthereareotherpointswherereportsofintimidationmaybemade.Foracompleteunderstandingoftheproblem,theactionteamwillwanttoconsiderprevalenceofreportedintimidationatallstages.Examplesofmeasurabledocumentedincidents,fromthemapinFigure2are:

Numberof911callsreportingintimidation Numberoffirstrespondervisitsbylawenforcementwherevictimorwitnessreports

intimidation Numberofreportsofintimidationtovictimadvocates Numberofreportsofintimidationtoprosecutors’offices Numberofformalintimidationchargesbroughtagainstdefendants Numberofno‐contactordersrelatedtointimidationinacriminalmatter Numberofreportsofintimidationwithinjailsandothercorrectionalinstitutions

Atanyofthesestages,theremaybeotherfactorstoconsider.First,howoftenarevictimsandwitnessesaffirmativelyaskedtoshareinformationaboutintimidation?Second,whatstatutesorlegalavenuesexistthatfacilitatechargingintimidationcriminally?Iflawenforcementdoesnotgenerallyaskaboutintimidation,thatisimportanttounderstandandhighlight.Itisalsoimportantforpractitionerstounderstandthatintimidatingconductmaybechargeableunderavarietyofstatutes,(e.g.,threats,harassment,criminalmischief/vandalism,obstructionofjustice,witnesstampering,etc.)andhowchargingtheseoffensesmightbeappropriateinanygivensituation.Inevitably,theactionteamwilldiscoverlimitationswithintheirinformationsystems.Forinstance,lawenforcementofficersandprosecutorsmaynotbedocumentingwhattheyhearaboutintimidatingbehavior.Victimadvocatesmayberecordingthatinformationintheirpaperfilesbuthavenowaytoreportitintheaggregate.Alternatively,advocatesmaybeprohibitedfromdisclosingduetoprivilegeandconfidentialitylaws.29Convictionsmightincludecrimesmotivatedbyintimidation,butnotbeidentifiedassuchinthejudgment.Theseareimportantfindingsandwillneedtobeconsideredastheactionteammovestotheplanningandimplementationstages.Asmentionedbefore,notalljurisdictionshavethecapacitytointegratetheirdatabasesamongagenciesorreadilyshareinformation.Wheretheinformationneededisnotavailable,theactionteammayconsidersamplingarandomsetofcasesorfilestoestimateofthefrequencyofintimidation.Scarcityofresourcestocollectandreportthisinformationmaypresentanobstaclebutnotonethatisinsurmountable.Researchpartnerswithinthejusticesystemoratlocaluniversitiesmaybeabletoassistwithestablishingappropriatesamplingproceduresand 28“Reported,”includesanytimethatavictimorwitnesstellsacriminaljusticeprofessionalaboutathreat.29Forfurtherdiscussionofconfidentialityandprivilege,seeViktoriaKristiansson,WalkingaTightrope:BalancingVictimPrivacyandOffenderAccountabilityinDomesticViolenceandSexualAssaultProsecutions,PartsI,9STRATEGIES(2013),http://www.aequitasresource.org/Issue_9_Walking_A_Tightrope_Balancing_Victim_Privacy_and_Offender_Accountability_in_Domestic_Violence_and_Sexual_Assault_Prosecutions_Part_I_May_2013.pdf;andViktoriaKristiansson,WalkingaTightrope:BalancingVictimPrivacyandOffenderAccountabilityinDomesticViolenceandSexualAssaultProsecutions,PartII,10STRATEGIES(2013),http://www.aequitasresource.org/Issue_10_Walking_A_Tightrope_Balancing_Victim_Privacy_and_Offender_Accountability_in_Domestic_Violence_and_Sexual_Assault_Prosecutions_Part_II_May_2013.pdf.

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ


29

conductingtheanalysis.Thesestepsareaworthwhileinvestmentofeffortbecauseitiscriticalthattheactionteamunderstandthescopeofitsexistingresponsetovictimandwitnessintimidation.30ACTIONSTEP4.COMPAREEXISTINGPRACTICETOBESTPRACTICES

Nowthattheactionteamunderstandsthescopeofintimidationinitssystem,itisreadytoidentifywhereexistingpracticesarealreadyalignedwiththebestpracticeprinciplesdiscussedinPartII.Ultimately,thisexerciseallowstheteamtopinpointspecificchangestopolicyandpracticethatcanimprovesafety.Twotoolsareofferedtofacilitatethisprocess.Thefirst,AppendixF,reiteratesthetenbestpracticeprinciplesandprovidesinformation‐gatheringstrategiestohelpunderstandthecurrentresponse.Theserecommendationsaremeanttoguidetheactionteamasitdetermineswhereitsjusticesystemalignswiththeprinciplesandwhereitdoesnot.Theyinvolveamixofapproaches,includingquantitativeanalysisofinformationsystems,policyreviews,observations,interviews,andfocusgroups.Thesecond,AppendixG,providesarubrictodeterminehowwellthesystemisalignedwiththebestpracticeprinciples.Foreachbestpracticeprinciple,thereisalow‐to‐highscalethatincludesspecificexamplesofactivitiesforeachlevel.Atthispoint,theactionteamhasquantifiedkeyvulnerabilitiesinitscriminaljusticesystem(“opportunitiesforintimidation”)andtheprevalenceofreportedintimidation.Thesefindingshighlightspecificpracticesthatcanbeimplementedand/orfurtherdevelopedtoenhancewitnesssafety,andprovideabaselineagainstwhichtheactionteamcanmeasurechange.Theactionteamnowknowswhereitisstartingandunderstandswhatopportunitiesandneedsthereareforchangewithsomeguidanceaboutstrategiesitcouldusetoeffectchange.Theteamisnowpoisedtochooseprioritiesandbegintotakeaction.ACTIONSTEP5.DEVELOPANDIMPLEMENTANACTIONABLEPLAN

ActionSteps1‐4willlikelyrevealanumberofareasforimprovementtovictimandwitnesssafetyaswellassuggestareasoffocus.Theactionteamcannotfocusonalloftheseareasatonce.Itwillneedtoworkcollectivelytosetprioritiesandgoals/objectives,whichcanbedonebydevelopingan“actionplan.”Therearemanyformatsforactionplansonline,butthatislessimportantthanthelevelofagreementandcommitmentbehindtheplan.31However,actionplansshouldataminimumaddressthefollowing: 30Sharinginformationprovidedbyacrimevictimimplicatesprivilegedandconfidentialinformation.Foradiscussiononhowtobalancelegalobligationwithvictimsafety,seesupranote29.31SeeAppendixB,infra.

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ


30

Table2.ActionPlanningFormatGoal Whattargetdoyouwantto reach?Whatispurposeofyouraction?Whatwill

bedifferentasaresultofthechange?Victimsandwitnesseswhovisitthecourtwillfeelsafe;theywillunderstandthatthecourtiscommittedtoprotectingthemfromintimidationandisworkinghardtodoso

Objectives Whatspecific outcomesneedtobeachievedtoreachthisgoal?Whoorwhatwillchange,byhowmuch,andoverwhatperiodoftime?Over90percentofvictimsandwitnesseswillunderstandhowtoidentifyintimidatingbehaviorinthecourthouseandknowthemultipleoptionstheyhaveforreportingtheintimidationandseekinghelp.

TasksorActivities Whatspecificactionsstepsortasksmustbeundertakentomaketheseobjectivesareality?Trainjusticesystempractitionerstoidentify,document,andtrackwitnessintimidation;practitioners,inturn,willadvocateforandeducatevictimsandwitnesses.

Person(s)Responsible

Whoisresponsibleforensuringthetasksoractivitiesareaccomplishedwithinthespecifiedtimeframe?Inmostjurisdictionsresponsibleteammembersincludecourtsecurityofficers,victimliaisonsemployedbycriminaljusticeagencies(e.g.,prosecutor’sofficeorlawenforcementagency),andcommunity‐basedadvocateswhoaccompanyvictimstocourt.Dependingontheresponsibilitiesofcourthousepractitionersandpersonnel,someteamsmightalsoincludejudges,bailiffs,clerksofcourt,orcourtadministrators.

ResourcesNeeded Whatfinancial,time, space,equipment, andhumanresourcesarenecessarytoimplementtasksandactivitieswithinthespecifiedtimeframe?Financesfortrainersandtrainingmaterials;spacefortrainingsaswellasregularteammeetings;equipmentsuchaslaptop,screen,andprojector,ifneededfortraining;andparticipationofteammembersinmeetingsandtraining.

Timeline Whatisthetimeframeforimplementingthetasksandactivities?Whenshouldworkbegin?Whenshouldtheworkendandsomethingbeproduced?Month1:Investigaterelevantlaw,policy,andanycurrentissues/complaints;Month2:Securetrainersandvenue,draftmaterials,advertisetraining;Month3:Peerreviewtrainingmaterials;finalizelogistics(e.g.,printing,refreshments,orAVequipment).

Outputs Whatdeliverablesorproductsshouldresultfromcompletionofthetasksandactivities?Facilitatorfortrainingidentifiedandcontractentered;trainingcurriculumisdeveloped;20courtsecurityofficershavebeentrained;etc.

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ


31

Manyjurisdictionsfindithelpfultoinviteafacilitatortoguidediscussionsaboutprioritiesandplanningforimplementation.Makingsenseofalloftheinformationandconductingtheanalysesrequiresthoughtfuldiscussion,whichmaybeeasierwithanindependent,skilledfacilitator,guidingteammembers.Theactionteamremainsresponsiblefortheprocessofchoosingprioritiesandcraftingtheplan.Whentheteamitselfismakingthecriticaldecisions,theindividualsinvolvedarefarmoreinvestedintheplanandinitsultimatesuccess.Makinganactionplanthatisspecificischallenging,butwithclearexpectations,theplanbecomesatoolforaccountability,indicatingwhenexpectationsarenotbeingmet.Again,anexperiencedfacilitator–whetherinternalorexternal–canhelptosettherighttonebyfocusingongroupaccountabilitytotheplan(theactionplanis“owned”bytheactionteam)andtheaccountabilityofmemberstooneanother.Thepurposeisnottopointfingerswhenthingsgowrongbuttotakeresponsibilityandmakethingsrightsogoalsandobjectivescanbereached.OnemethodologythatcanbeusedtodevelopspecificandmeasurableobjectivesistheSMART(Specific,Measurable,Achievable,Realistic,andTime‐Bound)process.32TheSMARTprocessprovidesachecklistforteamstoassessandimproveobjectives.AbriefoverviewofSMARTisofferedinAppendixH.Oncetheactionplanhasbeendrafted,theteammaywanttogobacktothegroupsorindividualsinvolvedinActionSteps1‐4(ensuringcapacityforchange,formingateam,definingcurrentstateofwitnesssafety,comparingexistingpracticestobestpractice).Invitingtheirfeedbackandcommentswillhelpbuildasenseofownershipamongthem,whichisimportantforthesuccessfulimplementationofchange.Thefeedbackandcommentswillalsolikelyprovideadditionalcontextinwhichtoconsiderthedecisionsandideas,whichwillhelprefineandstrengthentheplan.Theactionteamcanapproachimplementationinavarietyofways.Itcanaimtoincreasethelevelofengagementamongpractitioners,withthegoalofhavingthemcommittothechangeefforts.Alternatively,theteam’sgoalsmaybetodevelopawarenessandunderstandingofitsownwitnesssafetyresponses.Theteamshouldweightheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofthesedifferentapproachesandshouldincorporatejurisdictionalneedsandcapacityforchangeintheprocess.Figure3,below,offersahelpfulwayforactionteamstoconsidertheprocessofcommunicatingabouttheireffortsandtheimplementationofnewinitiatives.33Thefigure,fromtheworkoftheQueenslandGovernmentPublicServiceCommission,isa“communicationcontinuum.”Itdepictslevelsofengagementthatleadersgenerateinkeyconstituentsduringcommunicationaboutchange.Thecommissionexplains,

Whenanykindofchangeisannounced,peoplearehungryfor information. Intheabsence of sufficient information and opportunities to digest it through two‐way‘conversations’, change canbe stalled. Peoplewill continue towork as theyhavedone in the past; or rather than risk doing the ‘wrong’ thing, they do nothing.Effective communication is designed to create awareness and understanding inordertogetsubsequentsupportiveaction.Therationaleisthatifyouwantpeopletochange,theyneedtoinvestinthechangesyouareaskingthemtomake,andtheyaremorelikelytodothatiftheyunderstandthebenefitsofthechange.

32GeorgeT.Doran,G.T.There'sAS.M.A.R.T.WayToWriteManagement'sGoalsAndObjectives,70MANAGEMENTREVIEW(AMAFORUM)35‐36(1981).33ThePublicServiceCommission(PSC)inQueensland(Australia)advisesthegovernmentontheadministrationoftheQueenslandpublicsectorandthemanagementandemploymentofpublicsectoremployees.Itsmissionistodevelopandimplementpublicsectorworkforceandorganizationalmanagementstrategies.Amongitsobjectivesisbuildingcollaborationwithingovernmenttodeliversmarter,simpleroutcomesthatareresponsivetopublicneeds.

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ


32

Figure3.CommunicationContinuumAdaptedfromQueenslandPublicServiceCommission,ChangeManagementBestPracticesGuide.

Actionplanningiscriticaltoimplementingchange.Itisworthtakingsometimetobespecificaboutgoalsandobjectives,buildaccountabilitywithintheactionteam,buildaccountabilitybetweentheteamandoutsidejusticesystemandcommunityleaders,andcommunicateadetailedplantoabroadaudience.Asaresult,teamsavoidcreatingastaticactionplanandinsteadareabletomeetchallengesandpressures.Thisprocess,knownas“chaoticchange,”meansthatactionteamslearnmoreastheybeginimplementingtheirplansandarepreparedtomakeadjustmentsthatmaybenecessitatedbyshiftingpoliticalpriorities,leadershiptransitions,ornewpublicpressures.34Theteam’scommitmenttochange,however,andtoitsgoalsandobjectivesshouldcontinuetoguideitsworkthoughanyunanticipateddevelopments.ACTIONSTEP6.MONITOR,EVALUATE,ANDIMPROVEVICTIMANDWITNESSSAFETYEFFORTS

Intheearlystagesoftheimplementingtheactionplan,teamsshouldmeetregularly–ideallymonthly–toensuretimelinesaremetandthattasksareaccomplishedoractivitiescarriedoutasexpected.Teamsshouldknowwhatactivitiesoccurred,theirquality,andthestrengthsandweaknessesoftheirimplementation.Wheretimelinesarenotbeingmet,itisimportanttoask,“Howcanwegetbackontrack,”ratherthan,“Whoistoblameforthis.”Diligentlymonitoringprogressandrespondingquicklytounexpectedsituationshelpstostrengthenandensureeffectiveimplementationofchange.Theactionplanprovidesatemplateformonitoringactivities.Regularreviewsarenotonlyopportunitiestoassessprogressbutalsoatimewhentheteamcanreflectonlessonslearnedandrefineitsactionplanaccordingly.Table3belowisatoolforteamstodetermineprogress,reviewtheplan,andconsiderwhatadjustmentsmaybeneeded.Thisisanongoingprocess. 34Formoreinformationon“chaoticchange”andchangemanagementinthepublicsector,seeTomKarp&ThomasI.T.Helgo,ChangeManagementtoChangeLeadership:EmbracingChaoticChangeinPublicServiceOrganizations,8JOURNALOFCHANGEMANAGEMENT85‐96(2008).

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ


33

Table3.UsingtheActionPlanAsAMonitoringGuideActionPlanSection

ProgressPrompts LessonsLearned

TasksorActivities

Wastheactivityortaskachievedasdescribedorintended?Howwasitaccomplished?

Whatdoestheexperienceheretellusabouthowwestructurefutureactivities?Howmightweneedtorevisithowwehavedefinedotherpartsoftheactionplan?

Person(s)Responsible

Didtheoriginalpersonresponsibleaccomplishthetask?Whoactuallycontributedtomakingtheactivityhappen?

Whoelseneedstobeinvolvedinfutureactivitieslikethisone?Whatsupportdothoseresponsibleneedtosucceedinthefuture?

ResourcesNeeded

Whatresourceswereactuallyusedtoachievethistask?Howdidthatcomparetotheplan?Wasthisover/underbudget?Didittakemorehoursorfewer?

Howdoesthisexperienceinformorchangeestimatesofresourcesneededforupcomingtasks?

Timeline Whenwasthistaskcompleted?Wasthis“ontime”?

Howdoesthisexperienceinformorchangetimeestimatesforupcomingtasks?Howdoestheactualtimeframeaffecttherestoftheplanandexpecteddatesofdelivery?

Outputs Whatwasachievedasaresultofthistaskoractivity?(e.g.,Howmanypeopleattendedthetraining?Whatwastheirbackground?Didtheydemonstratenewskillsandknowledge?Howsatisfiedwereparticipantswiththetraining?)Howdidtheoutputscomparetotheoriginalplan?

Howmightweneedtocompensateforunmetoutputs?Howdoesthisexperiencechangeestimationsofoutputsforupcomingtasks?

Objectives Whatobjectivesweremet?Whatinterimprogresswasmadetowardtheobjectives?Whatinformationhavewecollectedtosupportfutureanalysisofobjectives?

Whatdoweneedtododifferentlytoensurethatwewillmeetourdesiredobjectives?Whatdoweneedtoensurethattheinformationavailablecanbeusedtomeasureourobjectives?

InActionStep2,theteamlookedatopportunitiesforintimidationanddocumentedincidenceofintimidation,andestablishedabaselineorpointofcomparisonastheimplementationprocesstookshape.Thesemeasures,usedtokickoffchange,shouldbeusedagainduringimplementationtoassessprogressandoutcomes.Forexample,theactionteammayhaveidentifiedmeasuressuchasintimidationchargesfiled,policereportsofintimidation,andrecantations.Astheactionplanisimplemented,theycanberevisitedandreassessedtodeterminewhathaschangedasaresultofimplementation.Analysisofoutcomesisnotalwaysstraightforwardandmayrequirediscussion.Forexample,duringearlyimplementation,theteammightseetheprevalenceofreportsincreaseasmorevictimsandwitnessesknowhowtoreportintimidationorfeelmorecomfortabledoingso.Overthelongterm,reportsmightdecrease,suggestingsomeimpactonintimidatingbehavior.Theactionteamshouldcollectinformationtogaugeoutcomesovertimeormaywanttocontractwithanoutsideevaluatortodothis.Ifthelatter,documentingnotonlyinformationrelatedtooutcomes

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ


34

butalsotheprocessofimplementationitselfwillbeinvaluabletoanevaluator.Potentialpartnersforthesekindsofevaluationsincludelocaluniversitiesornonprofitresearchorganizations.CONCLUSION

Thesafetyofvictimsandwitnessesiscriticaltotheadministrationofjustice.Thispublicationadvancesanunderstandingofvictimandwitnessintimidation,andprovidestoolstohelptranslateresearchintoeffectivepractices.Theapplicationofthisunderstandingandthesebestpracticeprincipleswillresultinbetteroutcomesforthevictimsandwitnesseswhoputsomuchonthelinewhencooperatingwiththejusticesystem.Ensuringtheirconfidenceinthesystem’sabilitytoprotectthemwhentheycooperatewithlawenforcementandprosecutorsfacilitatestherenderingofjusticeandadvancementofpublicsafety.Preventiveandprotectiveapproachesinmanyjusticesystemstodayaremoreprogramthansystemresponseandare“siloed”atseparateanddistinctstagesofthejusticeprocessratherthansustainingvictimandwitnesssafetythroughout.Sustainingvictimandwitnesssafetyrequirescomprehensivesystemiccommitmentsandresponsesthatpromotesafety.ThisResourcenotonlyhelpspractitionersdefinethescopeoftheintimidationproblemintheirjusticesystemsbutalsoprovidesaframeworkforquantifyingtheproblemandenhancingsafety.Translatingthisknowledgeintopractice–indeedintosystemschange–requiresaconcertedefforttoeffectandsustainchange.Here,wehavepresentedaprocesstomeasurechangethatincludesanassessmentofthesystem’scapacitytochange(ActionStep1),measurementoftheintimidationproblemusingatwo‐partconceptualmodel(ActionStep3),andtheanalysisofgapsandalignmentwithbestpractices(ActionStep4).Theactionplangrowsfromtheseanalysesandfromthecommitmentandcollaborationofleadershipandstakeholdersfromthroughoutthecriminaljusticesystem(ActionSteps2and5).Anactionteamthenmonitorsandevaluatesprogressandoutcomesovertime(ActionStep6).Thisprocessisintensiveandtakestime.Victimandwitnesssafetyispervasiveandcomplex,requiringahighlevelofcommitmentfromjusticesystemandcommunityactors.Thispublicationpresentsanapproachthatisuptothetaskoftacklingtheproblemofintimidationandmakinglastingadvancesinvictimandwitnesssafety.

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

APPENDICES

35

Appendices:Tools,Tables,andAdditionalResources

APPENDIXA:PARTIIRESOURCES

ThefollowingworksprovidedmostofthebasisfortheprinciplesandexamplesofbestpracticesdiscussedinPartII:

1. KELLYDEDEL,OFFICEOFCOMMUNITYORIENTEDPOLICINGSERVICES,PROBLEM‐ORIENTEDGUIDESFORPOLICEPROBLEM‐SPECIFICGUIDESERIESNO.42,WITNESSINTIMIDATION(July2006),http://www.popcenter.org/problems/pdfs/witness_intimidation.pdf.

2. PETERFINN&KERRYMURPHYHEALEY,NAT’LINSTITUTEOFJUSTICE,ISSUESANDPRACTICIES,PREVENTINGGANG‐RELATEDANDDRUG‐RELATEDWITNESSINTIMIDATION,ISSUESANDPRACTICESINCRIMINALJUSTICESERIES(Nov.1996),http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/163067.pdf.

3. KERRYMURPHYHEALEY,NAT’LINSTITUTEOFJUSTICE,RESEARCHINACTION,VICTIMANDWITNESSINTIMIDATION:NEWDEVELOPMENTSANDEMERGINGRESPONSES(Oct.1995),https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/witintim.pdf.

4. ELLENPENCE&DENISEENG,PRAXISINTERNATIONAL,THEBLUEPRINTFORSAFETY:ANINTERAGENCYRESPONSETODOMESTICVIOLENCECRIMES(2009),availableat,http://praxisinternational.org/blueprint_materials.aspx.

5. UNITEDNATIONS,OFFICEOFDRUGSANDCRIME,GOODPRACTICESFORTHEPROTECTIONOFWITNESSESINCRIMINALPROCEEDINGSINVOLVINGORGANIZEDCRIME(2008),http://www.unodc.org/documents/organized‐crime/Witness‐protection‐manual‐Feb08.pdf.

ThefollowingSafetyandAccountabilityAuditswerealsoconsulted:

1. DOMESTICVIOLENCEINTERVENTIONPROJECT,LACROSSECOUNTYDOMESTICVIOLENCESAFETYANDACCOUNTABILITYAUDITFINDINGSANDRECOMMENDATIONS(Oct.2005),http://files.praxisinternational.org/LaCrosseAuditFindings.pdf.

2. BELLINGHAM‐WHATCOMCOUNTYCOMMISSIONAGAINSTDOMESTICVIOLENCE,DOMESTICVIOLENCESAFETYANDACCOUNTABILITYAUDIT,FINDINGSANDRECOMMENDATIONSFORTHECITYOFBLAINE:POLICE,PROSECUTION,PROBATIONANDCOURTRESPONSES(Oct.2007),http://files.praxisinternational.org/Blaine_Final_Report.pdf.

3. RHONDAMARTINSON&MARIJKABELGUM‐GABBERT,AEQUITAS:THEPROSECUTORS’RESOURCEONVIOLENCEAGAINSTWOMEN,IMPROVINGTHEJUSTICESYSTEMRESPONSETOWITNESSINTIMIDATION,PILOTPROJECTREPORT:KNOXVILLE,TENNESSEE,2011(2012).

4. RHONDAMARTINSON&GRAHAMBARNES,AEQUITAS:THEPROSECUTORS’RESOURCEONVIOLENCEAGAINSTWOMEN,IMPROVINGTHEJUSTICESYSTEMRESPONSETOWITNESSINTIMIDATION,PILOTPROJECTREPORT:DULUTH,MINNESOTA,2011(2012).

5. RHONDAMARTINSON,ELIZABETHWOFFORD,SANDRATIBBETTSMURPHY&MARIJKABELGUM‐GABBERT,AEQUITAS:THEPROSECUTORS’RESOURCEONVIOLENCEAGAINSTWOMEN,IMPROVINGTHEJUSTICESYSTEMRESPONSETOWITNESSINTIMIDATION,PILOTPROJECTREPORT:SANDIEGO,CALIFORNIA,2011(2012).

APPENDICES

36Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Othersourcesthatinformedthispart:

1. JOHNANDERSON,NAT’LGANGCENTERBULLETIN,GANG‐RELATEDWITNESSINTIMIDATION(Feb.2007),http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Content/Documents/Gang‐Related‐Witness‐Intimidation.pdf.

2. NicholasFyfe&JamesSheptycki,InternationalTrendsintheFacilitationofWitnessCo‐operationinOrganizedCrimeCases,3(3)EUROPEANJOURNALOFCRIMINOLOGY319‐55(2006).

3. JENNIFERGENTILELONG,CHRISTOPHERMALLIOS&SANDRATIBBETTSMURPHY,BATTEREDWOMEN’SJUSTICEPROJECT,MODELPOLICYFORPROSECUTORSANDJUDGESONIMPOSING,MODIFYINGANDLIFTINGCRIMINALNOCONTACTORDERS(2010),http://www.aequitasresource.org/model_policy.pdf.

4. OFFICEFORVICTIMSOFCRIME,ATTORNEYGENERALGUIDELINESFORVICTIMANDWITNESSASSISTANCE(2011),http://www.justice.gov/olp/pdf/ag_guidelines2012.pdf.

5. JULIEWHITMAN&ROBERTC.DAVIS,THENAT’LCENTERFORVICTIMSOFCRIME,SNITCHESGETSTITCHES:YOUTH,GANGS,ANDWITNESSINTIMIDATIONINMASSACHUSETTS(2007),http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/38544/ocn137337215.pdf?sequence=1.

Backtotext

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

APPENDICES

37

APPENDIXB:PARTIIIRESOURCES

Formoreinformationaboutchangemanagementandactionplanning,pleaserefertothefollowingresources:

1. LEILAHGILLIGAN&MADELINEM.CARTER,CENTERFOREFFECTIVEPUBLICPOLICY,STATEJUSTICEINSTITUTE,THEROLEOFFACILITATORSANDSTAFFINSUPPORTINGCOLLABORATIVETEAMS(Jan.2006),availableathttp://nicic.gov/Library/021203.

2. PAULW.MATTESSICH,MARTAMURRAY‐CLOSE&BARBARAR.MONSEY,COLLABORATION:WHATMAKESITWORK.AREVIEWOFRESEARCHLITERATUREONFACTORSINFLUENCINGSUCCESSFULCOLLABORATION(AmherstH.WilderFoundation,2ded.2001).

3. AIMEEWICKMAN,BARRYMAHONEY&M.ELAINEBORAKOVE,JUSTICEMANAGEMENTINSTITUTE,IMPROVINGCRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEMPLANNINGANDOPERATIONS:CHALLENGESFORLOCALGOVERNMENTSANDCRIMINALJUSTICECOORDINATINGCOUNCILS(2011),https://www.bja.gov/Publications/CJCCWhitePaperExecSummary.pdf.

4. SHELLEY,WISEMAN,MATTHEWCHINMAN,PATRICIAA.EBENER,SARAHHUNTER,PAMELAIMM,ABRAHAMWANDERSMAN,GETTINGTOOUTCOMES™:10STEPSFORACHIEVINGRESULTS‐BASEDACCOUNTABILITY(RANDCorporation2007).

Backtotext

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

APPENDICES

38

APPENDIXC.RUBRICTOASSESSOPERATIONALKNOWLEDGEOFVICTIMANDWITNESSSAFETYAMONGCRIMINALJUSTICEPRACTITIONERS

1

(Low)2

3

4(High)

Demonstratesknowledgeofwhatwitnessintimidationis,itsvariousforms,andhowitimpedeshis/herwork

Cannotexplainwhatwitnessintimidationis,examplesofovertandimplicitintimidation,anditsspecificimpactonhis/herwork.

Defineswitnessintimidationandprovidessomeexamplesofovertandimplicitintimidation.Maynotbeabletoprovideafullunderstandingoftheimpactonhis/herworkandthecriminaljusticesystem.

Understandswitnessintimidationtactics,bothovertandimplicit,thataremostcommonlyusedacrossavarietyofcases(e.g.domesticviolence,gang).Explainsthespecificimpactofintimidationonhis/herworkintermsofobstructionofjusticeandobstaclestopublicsafety.

Assessesandrecognizesevidenceofpresentandpastintimidationwheninterviewingvictimsorwitnesses.Explainsthespecificimpactofintimidationonhis/herworkintermsofobstructionofjusticeandobstaclestopublicsafety.

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

APPENDICES

39

1

(Low)2

3

4(High)

Assessvulnerabilityofawitnessorvictimtointimidationusingobjectivetoolsandbestpracticesafetyresponsesineachcase

Doesnotaskquestionsorinvestigatewhetherintimidationistakingplace.

Askssomequestionsaboutintimidationwhenspeakingwithvictimsandwitnesses.Maymakesomejudgmentaboutriskoffutureintimidationbasedonprofessionalexperience.

Asksquestionsaboutpastintimidationandotherbehaviorsbyallegedperpetratorwhenspeakingwithvictimsandwitnesses.Makesjudgmentaboutriskoffutureintimidationbasedonprofessionalexperienceandtraining.Takesdifferentialsafetymeasuresbasedontheperceivedlevelofrisk.

Usesa structuredprotocolorobjectiveassessmenttoolto(1)uncoverintimidationwhenspeakingwithvictimsandwitnessesand(2)determineriskoffutureintimidation.Professionaljudgmentcontinuestoinformactionsandenhancesthefindingsfromthestructuredprotocolunderspecificconditions.Takesdifferential,bestpracticesafetymeasuresbasedontheperceivedlevelofrisk.

Adviseandeducatevictimsandwitnessesabouthowtorecognize,report,andprotectthemselvesagainstintimidation

Doesnotregularlydiscussintimidationwithvictimsandwitnesses.

Inconsistentlydiscussesintimidationwithvictimsandwitnesses.

Providesvictimsandwitnesseswithliteratureoraccesstoresourcesonintimidationattheonsetofcriminalcases,uponrequest`.

Proactivelyreachesouttovictimsandwitnessesaboutintimidation.Literatureandresourcesprovidedregularlyatonsetofcases.

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

APPENDICES

40

1

(Low)2

3

4(High)

Makemeaningfulreferralstoservicesforvictimsandwitnesseswhentheyrequestassistance

Doesnotofferassistancetowitnessesorvictims.

Providesvictimsandwitnesseswithanumbertocallforassistanceorwithstandardliteraturewithresources.

Engagesindialoguewithvictimsandwitnessesabouttheassistancetheyneedanddirectsthemtospecificresources.

Individualizesreferralstoresourcestotheneedsofeachvictimorwitnessandfollowsuptoensuretheyhaveconnectedwiththeappropriateservices.Troubleshootsreferralsasnecessary.

Workwithvictimsandwitnessestobuildaprosecutablecaseofintimidation

Doesnotdocumentinformationaboutintimidation.Perceivesnoroleinprosecutionorthatprosecutorsdonotchargeintimidationwithanyregularity.

Documentssomeinformationaboutintimidationasithappens.Doesnotshareinformationwithprosecutionunlessrequested.Maynotperceiveprosecutionasinvolvedinchargingintimidationatthisstage.

Documentskeyinformationaboutintimidationaccordingtoastandardprotocoldevelopedwithprosecutioninmind.Activelyseeksoutinformationfromvictimsandwitnessesaboutintimidationwheninteractingwiththem.

Proactivelyadvisesvictimsandwitnessesaboutprosecutionofintimidationandwhatinformationisimportanttothesuccessofthosecases.Documentskeyinformationaboutintimidationaccordingtoastandardprotocol.Activelyandregularlyseeksoutinformationfromvictimsandwitnessesaboutintimidationwheninteractingwiththem.

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

APPENDICES

41

1

(Low)2

3

4(High)

Adjusthis/herownworkstrategiestominimizeexposureandopportunitiesforintimidationamongvictimsandwitnesses

Treatsallvictimsandwitnessesthesameway.

Makesadjustmentstointeractionwithvictimsandwitnessesbasedontheirdisclosureofintimidationorothersafetyrisk(e.g.,conductinterviewsinalternativeareas,changequestioningtactics,providesafetyinformationsurreptitiously).

Assessesthe risklevelofvictimsandwitnessesandusesbestpracticetoadjustworkstrategiestominimizerisk.

Assessestherisklevelofvictimsandwitnessesandusesbestpracticetoadjustworkstrategiestominimizerisk.Problem‐solves(individuallyorcollaborativelywithalliedprofessionals)withthevictimorwitnesstoidentifynovelorindividualizedstrategiestoensuresafety.

Demonstrateunderstandingofhowhis/herworkfitsintoabroadercoordinatedresponsetopromotewitnessandvictimsafety

Isnotawareofwhatthecriminaljusticesystemapproachtovictimandwitnesssafetyisorbelievestheapproachisweakorfailing

Understandsthesystemapproachtovictimandwitnesssafetybutnothis/herroleinthatprocess.Maynotbelievethesystemapproachisadequate.

Explainsthatvictimandwitnesssafetyareprioritiesforthecriminaljusticesystemandisabletodescribesomeofthemajorsystemicresponses.Articulateshowhis/herownworkandthatofhis/hercolleaguescontributestosafetygoals.

Explainsthatvictimandwitnesssafetyareprioritiesforthecriminaljusticesystemandisabletodescribethemajorsystemicresponses.Articulateshowhis/herownworkandthatofhis/hercolleaguescontributestosafetygoals.Describesongoingeffortstocoordinateeffortsacrossstakeholdersinthesystem.

Backtotext

APPENDICES

42Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

APPENDIXD.INDICATORSOFREADINESSTOCHANGE35

MajorIndicators AdditionalIndicators1. Communityandorganizational

climatethatfacilitateschange

a. Organizationalclimate:Thedegreetowhichcurrentsystemconditionsareorientedtoidentifyingintimidationandensuringvictim/witnesssafety

b. Communityclimate:Thedegreetowhichthebroadercommunityissupportiveofthecriminaljusticesystemanditseffortstopromotevictim/witnesssafety

2. Currentattitudesandeffortstowardvictimandwitnesssafety

c. Currentawareness:Theextenttowhichstakeholdersknowaboutthecausesoftheproblem,consequences,andhowitimpactstheiragenciesororganizations

d. Currentvalues:Therelativeworthorimportancethatstakeholdersandthebroadercommunityplaceonwitnesssafety

e. Currentefforts:Thewitnesssafetyeffortsthatarealreadyunderwayorunderseriousconsideration

3. Commitmenttochange

f. Hopeforchange:Thebeliefamongstakeholdersthatthecriminaljusticesystemcanchangeandimprovevictimandwitnesssafety

g. Needforchange:Theextenttowhichstakeholdersandthecommunityfeelthattherearelegitimatereasonsandaneedforenhancedwitnesssafetyefforts

h. Commitmenttochange:Theextenttowhichleadership(e.g.,agencyheads,chiefexecutives)iscommittedtoandsupportsenhancedwitnesssafetyefforts

4. Capacitytoimplementchange

i. Relationalcapacity:Relationshipsthatarenecessaryforchangeareinplaceandorientedtowardchange(e.g.,socialties,communityattachment,andstakeholderinvolvement)

j. Collectiveefficacy:Thebeliefinone’sownortheworkgroup’scapacitytoeffectivelyaccomplishataskortoengageinfuturechangeefforts

k. Leadership:Theextenttowhichleadersaresupportiveofenhancedwitnesssafetyefforts;theextenttowhichleadershipiseffective

l. Resources:Thelocalresources(people,time,money,andspace)availabletosupportwitnesssafetyefforts

m. Skillsandknowledge:Theextenttowhichstakeholderscollectivelyhavetheskillsnecessarytoimplementinnovativeefforts(e.g.,adaptability,evaluation,technical,researchanddatadissemination,culturalcompetency,andtraining)

Backtotext 35AdaptedfromShielaF.Castañeda,JessicaHolscher,ManpreetK.Mumman,HugoSalgado,KatherineB.Keir,PennieG.Foster‐Fishman,GregoryA.Talavera,DimensionsofCommunityandOrganizationalReadinessforChange,6PROGRESSINCOMMUNITYHEALTHPARTNERSHIPS:RESEARCH,EDUCATION,ANDACTION,219‐26(2012).

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

APPENDICES

43

APPENDIXE.PROTOCOLFORASSESSINGANDQUANTIFYING“OPPORTUNITIESFORINTIMIDATION”

Stageincriminaljusticecontinuum Opportunitiesforintimidation 1 2 3 4Four‐pointscale:1‐Neverhappens,2‐Sometimeshappens,3‐ Oftenhappens,4‐Alwayshappens

Incidentoccurs

Community‐based,community‐levelintimidation. Residentsaregenerallyreluctanttoreportcrimesorcooperatewithlawenforcement,becausetheyfearretaliationorbecausetheyfearhostilityfromcommunitymembers.

Community‐based,individual‐levelintimidation. Individualvictimsarereluctanttoreportcrimesorcooperatewithlawenforcementbecausetheyfearretaliationorhostilityfromcommunitymembers.

Incidentreportedtopolice

Theidentitiesofinformantsandreportersofcrimearenotkeptconfidentialorotherwiseprotectedadequatelyfrompotentialintimidators

Mechanismstoreportcrimedonotprovidesufficientavenuesforanonymityorprotectionofidentity

Signsofexistingorpotentialintimidationarenotrecognizedorrecordedby911calltakers;instructionforparticularcareregardingtheidentityofinformantsnotcommunicatedtofirstresponders

PoliceinitialresponsePoliceinvestigation(initial/pre‐charge)

Interviewsduringfirstresponseandduringinvestigationtakeplaceinpublicareasorareotherwisenotkeptconfidential(e.g.,uniformedpolicevisitingwitnesses’homes)

Interviewswithvictimstakeplaceinpresenceofallegedperpetrators

Signsofexistingorpotentialintimidationarenotrecognizedorrecordedbyfirstresponders;assessmentofsafetyrisknotconducted

Victimsandwitnessesarenotinformedaboutthethreatofintimidationandwhattheycandoaboutit

Victimsandwitnessesarenotprovidedwithresources/peopletheycanaccesswhentheyneedhelp

Police/prosecutorinvestigation(ongoing/duringadjudication)

Ongoinginterviewsarenotconductedconfidentiallyorinsafeplaces

Ongoingre‐assessmentofrisknottakingplace Victimsandwitnessesdonotreceivepro‐activecommunication(e.g.,frompolice,fromvictimservices)tocheckinonneedsandsafety

APPENDICES

44Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ


ArrestJailhold/pretrialdetention

Littleornoongoingcontactwithappropriatecriminaljusticesystemprofessionals(e.g.,police,prosecutors,victimservices)abouttheirneedsandsafetyconcerns

Callsandothercommunicationfromjailarenotmonitoredadequately

Ifmonitored,informationthatmightbeusedtoprosecuteintimidationortotakesomeotheractionisnotsharedwithappropriateparties

Detaineescircumventexistingcontrols,suchasblockedcallsorPINsformakingcalls,inordertocontactvictimsandwitnessesortoinstructfamiliesandfriendstodoso

Detaineeswhoaredefendantsarenotadequatelyseparatedfromdetaineeswhoarevictimsorwitnessesandwhoalsohappentobedetained

Firstappearance/arraignmentPretrialproceedingsTrialSentencing

Littleornoongoingcontactwithappropriatecriminaljusticesystemprofessionals(e.g.,police,prosecutors,victimservices)abouttheirneedsandsafetyconcerns

Appearancesincourtinclude longperiodsofwaitinginpublicspaces,creatingampleopportunityfordefendants,victimsandwitnessestointeract

Victimsandwitnesses arenotvisuallyorphysicallyseparatedfromdefendantsinpublicspacesofthecourthouse

Victimsandwitnesses arenotadequatelyseparatedfromdefendantsincourtroomsduringactualhearings

Intimidatingbehavior inthecourthouseandincourtroomsisnotidentifiedorpoliced

Informationaboutoffenderreleasestatusisnotprovidedorprovidedtoolatetobeuseful

Whenintimidating behaviorsareidentified,theyarenotdocumentedorsharedwithothers(e.g.,prosecutors,police)

Supervision/corrections

Littletonosafetyplanningtakesplaceinhigh‐riskcaseswithvictimsandwitnesses

Informationaboutthereleasestatusofoffendersisnotprovidedorprovidedtoolatetobeuseful

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

APPENDICES

45


Victimsandwitnessesarenotprovidedwithresources/peopletheycanaccesswhentheyneedhelp

Victimsandwitnessesdonotreceivepro‐activecommunication(e.g.,frompolice,fromvictimservices)tocheckonneedsandsafety

No‐contactorderissued

Victimorwitnesswishesarenotconsideredintheissuanceofno‐contactorders,whichmayplacethematgreaterrisk

Conditionsofno‐contactordersarenot specific(e.g.,usevaguetermssuchas“mayhavereasonablevisitationswiththechildren”)orcomprehensiveenough(e.g.,donotaccountforsocialmediacontact)

Conditionsarenotuniformlyenforced;consequencesarenotswiftandcertain

Termsandconditionsofordersnotclearlycommunicatedthroughoutthecriminaljusticesystem(e.g.,tojails)

Victimsandwitnessesdonotclearlyunderstandwhatrecoursetheyhavewhenno‐contactordersareviolatedorwhatroletheycanplayintheirownsafety

Throughoutthecriminaljusticecontinuum

Patternsofintimidatingbehaviorarenottrackedbetweenstagesintheprocessandamongactorsinvolvedinacase

Informationabouthistoryorescalationofintimidatingbehaviorbycaseorbyindividualisnotreadilyavailabletocriminaljusticeprofessionals

APPENDICES

46Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

APPENDIXF.INFORMATION‐GATHERINGSTRATEGIESFORDETERMININGSYSTEMALIGNMENTTOTHEBESTPRACTICEPRINCIPLES

Principle Information GatheringStrategies1 Planandimplementcoordinatedcriminal

justiceresponsestovictimandwitnessintimidationthatspanfromthestageofreportingtoafterthereleaseoftheoffender.

Identifycross‐systemplanninggroupswiththecapacitytoadvancewitnesssafetyefforts

Documentandmapcurrentresponses Surveycourthousevisitorsabouttheir

awarenessofsafetyefforts2 Usecommunity‐basedapproachesto

buildtrustamongneighborhoodresidentsandencouragereportingofinformationaboutcrimes,includingintimidation.

Identifycommunity‐basedprogrammingandinitiativesinplaceorunderconsideration

Surveylawenforcementorprosecutorswhomaybeinvolvedintheseinitiativesaboutthenatureandsuccessofthiswork

Surveycommunitymembersabouttheseefforts

3 Educatevictimsandwitnessesaboutwitnessintimidation.

Identifyprintmaterialsandotherresourcesthatareusedtoeducatevictimsandwitnessesaboutwitnessintimidation

Identifytrainingprogramsthatareinplaceandreviewtheircurricula

Determinenumberofpeoplereachedbythesestrategies

4 Equipjusticesystemleadershipandstaffwithanoperationalknowledgeofintimidationandsafety.

Identifytrainingprogramsforleadershipandstaffandreviewcurriculum

Surveyleadershipandstafftodeterminelevelofoperationalknowledge

5 Buildtrustwithindividualvictimsandwitnessesbymaintainingconsistentteamsofcriminaljusticeactorswhoworkwiththemandrespondholisticallytotheirneeds

Reviewpoliciesandproceduresregardingpersonnelassignedtoworkoncasesandspecificallytoworkwithvictimsandwitnesses

Surveyjusticeprofessionalsandvictimsandwitnessesabouttheirexperiences

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

APPENDICES

47

Principle Information GatheringStrategies6 Useobjectiveassessmentsandinput

fromvictimsandwitnessestodetermineriskofandvulnerabilitytointimidationandusethosedatatotargetwitnesssafetyefforts.

Documentwhattools(informalandformal)justiceprofessionalsusetoassessrisk

Identifyfactorsconsideredintheseriskassessments

Identifywhenandwhereinthesystemtheseassessmentstakeplace

Documenthowinformationfromtheseassessmentsisusedtodefineresponses

7 Createinformation‐sharingpoliciesthatlinkcriminaljusticeactorsandallowthemtoidentifypatternsofbehaviorandpossibleintimidationinindividualcases.

Identifytheinformationsystemsusedbyeachofthestakeholdersinthecriminaljusticesystem

Documenttheinteroperabilityofthesesystems

Determinethecapacityofeachsystemtodocumentandtrackintimidation

Determinetheuseofthesesystemstodocumentandtrackintimidation

Identifyothersourcesofinformationaboutreportsofintimidationandhowtheyareused

8 Makeallreasonableeffortstominimizecontactbetweenvictims/witnessesanddefendantsthroughoutthecriminaljusticeprocess.

Identifypoliciesandproceduresthatseparatetheseparties

Observecurrentpracticesinthecourthouse

Surveyvictimsandwitnessesabouttheirexperienceswheninterviewedbypoliceorprosecutors,whenincourt,andgenerallywheninthecommunity

9 Createasafespaceintheircourthouses. Observecurrentpracticesinthecourthouse

Reviewpoliciesandspeakwithstaff Surveyvictimsandwitnessesabout

theirexperienceswhenvisitingcourt Identifystrategiestopreventand

respondtointimidatingbehaviorinthecourthouse

APPENDICES

48Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Principle Information GatheringStrategies10 Trackprogressandoutcomesanduse

thosedatatoinformsystemimprovement.

Identifymeasurableprogressandoutcomeindicatorsusedbyleadershiptoassesssuccessofsafetyefforts

Documenthowoftenthesedataarereviewedandusedbyleadershiptotweakprogramming

Documenthowtheseindicatorsshapewhatdataarecollectedandreportedininformationsystems

Documenthowindividualsoragenciesareheldaccountablewhenthedatarevealaproblem

Backtotext

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

APPENDICES

49

APPENDIXG.RUBRICTODETERMINEADHERENCETOBESTPRACTICEPRINCIPLES

1(Low)

2

3

4(High)

1 Planandimplementhighlyvisibleandcoordinatedcriminaljustice responsestovictimandwitnessintimidationthatspanfromthestageofreportingtoafterthereleaseoftheoffender.

Effectivecross‐systemcoordinatedresponseteamfocusedonwitnesssafety

Noformalorinformalworkgroupsthatincludeleadersfromacrossthejusticesystemisinplace.Theremaybeoccasionalmeetingsthatbringtogethertheseindividuals,butthesemeetingsdonotincludesubstantivepolicydiscussionordecision‐making.

Oneormoreworkinggroupsexistthroughoutthejusticesystem,whichmayincluderepresentativesfromanumberofstakeholdergroups.Thesegroupsarelimitedinscope(e.g.,toaspecificstageofthejusticesystem)butnonetheless,functioneffectivelytobringtogetherdiverseinterestsandtoimplementcomplexresponsesandinterventions.Nosuchgroup,however,hashadsystem‐widesuccess.

Afunctioningworkinggroupwithasystemsfocusiscurrentlyinplaceorhassucceededinthepast.Thisgroupmaybeinformalorformal,butdoesmeetperiodically.Theworkinggroupmaynotbecompletelyrepresentativeofallsystemstakeholders.Ithasnotwhollyfocusedonwitnesssafetybuthassucceededinotherareas.

Aformalworkgroupofleadershipfromeachkeystakeholdergroupinthecriminaljusticesystemisinplaceandmeetsregularlytodiscussanddecidesubstantiveissues.Thegroupincludes,asatleastonemajorpriority,promotingwitnesssafety.Thegroupincludesrepresentativesfromlawenforcement,prosecution,thejudiciaryandcourts,pretrialservices,courtsecurity,jailsandcorrections,probation,etc.

Continuumofcoordinatedresponsesacrossthesystemandrisklevels

Thecriminaljusticesystemdoesnothaveanywitnesssafetyprogramsortheyremainlargelyunused.Victimsandwitnessesarenot

Thecriminaljusticesystemhassomewitnesssafetyprogramminginplaceatcertainstages,suchasduringadjudicationoratthejail.

Thecriminaljusticesystemhasanarrayofwitnesssafetyresponsesfromarrestthroughadjudication,sentencing,and

Thecriminaljusticesystemhasacoordinatedsystemofwitnesssafetyresponsesfromarrestthroughadjudication,

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

APPENDICES

50

1(Low)

2

3

4(High)

systematicallyorreliablyaffordedprotectiveandsupportserviceswhenrequested.

Nonetheless,majorgapsinwitnesssafetypersistinthecommunityoratkeystagesofacriminalcase.Safetyresponsesarenotconsistentlyprovidedtovictimsandwitnessesbasedonidentifiedsafetyrisk.

corrections.However,theseeffortsarenotwell‐coordinatedandcommunicationisinconsistent.Someoftheseresponsesmaybeusedbasedonidentifiedsafetyrisk.

sentencing,andcorrections.Theseresponsesarestrategicallybasedontheidentifiedrisksandneedsofvictimsandwitnesses.Theresponsesarealignedwithbestpracticeprinciples.

Highvisibilityofcommitmenttowitnesssafety

Therearenospecialeffortstocommunicatewitnesssafetyasapriorityofthecriminaljusticesystem.Stakeholdersdonotgenerallydiscusswitnesssafetymeasureswithwitnessandvictimsandmaynotbeawareofthoseresponsesthemselves.Witnesssafetyisnotmentionedinliteratureorsignageforthepublic.

Therearesomeeffortstocommunicatewitnesssafetyasapriorityofthecriminaljusticesystem.Witnesssafetymaybementionedinliteratureorsignageforthepublic.However,stakeholdersdonotgenerallydiscusswitnesssafetymeasureswithwitnessandvictimsandmaynotconsistentlybeawareofthoseresponsesthemselves.

Victimandwitnesssafetyarecommunicatedasapriorityofthecriminaljusticesystem.Witnesssafetyfeaturesprominentlyinliteratureorsignageforthepublic.However,therearestillgapsincommunicatingsafetyeffortsandservicestovictimsandwitnesses.Effortsmaybeunderwaytoenhancesafetyandthatinitiativemaybehighlyvisible.

Keystakeholdersinthecriminaljusticesystembroadcastitscommitmenttowitnesssafety.Whetheramemberofthepublicvictimorwitnessinacriminalmatter,anypersoninteractingwithlawenforcement,courts,prosecutors,ordetentionfacilitiesisremindedofthekeyimportanceofwitnesssafety.Witnesssafetymeasuresarevisiblepartsofcriminalcasesandcourtsecurityisclearlyfocusedonpreventingintimidatingbehavior.

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

APPENDICES

51

1(Low)

2

3

4(High)

2 Usecommunity‐basedapproachestobuildtrustamongneighborhoodresidentsandencouragereportingofinformationaboutcrimes,includingintimidation.

Therearenowitnesssafetyprogramsinplaceinthecommunity.Neithercommunitypolicingnorcommunityprosecutionstrategiesareused.

Therearesomeeffortstopublicizewitnesssafetyeffortstocommunities.Theseeffortsmaynotbefocusedonspecific,at‐riskcommunities.Communitymembersmaystillnotbeconsistentlyawareofthesesafetyefforts.

Communitypolicingand/orcommunityprosecutionstrategiesareinplaceandmayhaveafocusonwitnesssafety.Specific,at‐riskcommunitiesaretargeted.However,residentsarenotconsistentlyawareofandreceptivetowitness/victimsafetyefforts.

Effortstopromotevictimandwitnesssafetyareinplaceinthecommunity.Communitypolicingand/orcommunityprosecutionstrategiesarecenterpiecesofthisapproach.At‐riskcommunitiesaretargetedandresidentsnotinvolvedinthejusticesystemarestillawareofandreceptivetoitssafetymessagesandeffortsinthecommunity.

3 Educatevictimsandwitnessesaboutwitnessintimidation.

Nospecializededucation isprovidedtowitnesses/victimsregardingintimidationandsafety.

Victimsandwitnessesmaybeprovidedinformationaboutintimidationandsafetyincertaincases.Thisinformationmaynotbecomprehensiveandmaybelargelyintheformofprintmaterials.Morethoroughinformation

Formalandconsistenteducationofat‐riskvictimsandwitnessesisinplaceandfocusesonprovidingvictimsandwitnesseswiththetoolstoidentifyintimidation,anticipatewhenitmaytakeplace,preventit,andtake

Formalandconsistenteducationofat‐riskvictimsandwitnessesisinplaceandfocusesonprovidingtoolstoidentifyintimidation,anticipatewhenitmaytakeplace,preventitandtakeactionifitdoeshappen.Inaddition,

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

APPENDICES

52

1(Low)

2

3

4(High)

maybeprovidedifvictims/witnessesidentifythemselvesaneedforservices.

actionifitdoeshappen.Follow‐updiscussionstoidentifyandproblem‐solveintimidationmayoccurbutarenotconsistent.

justicesystem staffinteractingwithvictimsandwitnessesthroughoutthesystemregularlyengageintrustingconversationstohelpidentifyandproblem‐solveintimidation.Victimsandwitnessesknowwhenandwheretogoforhelpwhentheirsafetyisthreatened.

4 Equipcriminaljusticeleadershipandstaffwithanoperationalknowledgeofintimidationandsafety.

Detailforthissectionoftherubrichasbeenpresentedin“Table2.RubrictoAssessOperationalKnowledgeofVictimandWitnessSafetyAmongCriminalJusticePractitioners”.

Criminaljusticepractitionersgenerallyshowevidenceofhighperformancefor0‐1ofthe7domainsinthe“RubrictoAssessOperationalKnowledgeofVictimandWitnessSafety”.




5 Buildtrustwithindividualvictimsandwitnessesbymaintainingconsistentteamsofcriminaljusticeactorswhoworkwiththemandbyrespondingholisticallytotheirneeds.

Nospecialeffortsareinplacetominimizethechangesinpersonnelworkingwithvictimsandwitnesses.Transitions

Somemeasuresareinplacetominimizechangesinpersonnelworkingwithvictimsandwitnesses.Vertical

Formalpoliciesandinfrastructureminimizethenumberofdifferentpeoplevictims/witnesses

Formalpoliciesandinfrastructureminimizethenumberofdifferentpeoplevictims/witnessesmust

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

APPENDICES

53

1(Low)

2

3

4(High)

acrossstaffarecommon,andtheremaybeinstitutionalpolicies,suchaslawenforcementshiftchangesorhorizontalrepresentationamongprosecution,thatnecessitatethese“handoffs”.

prosecution isinplaceattheprosecutor’sofficeandsimilarmeasuresmaybeinplaceinlawenforcement.Thesekindsofmeasuresarenotconsistentacrossthesystem.

mustinteractwithinthecriminaljusticesystem.Theycangenerallyexpecttoworkwiththesamelawenforcementprofessionals,prosecutors,andadvocates.Communicationbetweensystemstaffandvictims/witnessesisinconsistent.Victimsandwitnessesarenotconsistentlyprovidedtimelyandaccurateinformationaboutmajorcaseevents,especiallyreleasestatus.

interactwithinthecriminaljusticesystem.Theycangenerallyexpecttoworkwiththesamelawenforcementprofessionals,prosecutors,andadvocates.Communicationbetweensystemstaffandvictims/witnessesisfrequentandregular.Itfocusesonsafety,neededservices,andclarificationoftheinvestigationoradjudicationprocesses.Victimsandwitnessesareprovidedtimelyandaccurateinformationaboutmajorcaseevents,especiallyreleasestatus.

6 Useobjectiveassessmentsandinputfromvictimsandwitnessestodetermineriskofandvulnerabilitytointimidationandusethosedatatotargetwitnesssafetyefforts.

Noformalorinformalassessmentsofsafetyriskareconductedwithvictimsandwitnesses.

Criminaljusticeprofessionalsatcertainstagesofthecriminaljusticecontinuumgenerallyaskquestionsofvictimsandwitnesses

Criminaljusticeprofessionalsthroughoutthesystemusecommonprotocolstoaskquestionsthathelpthemtomake

Validatedthreatassessmentsareusedacrossthecriminaljusticecontinuumwithvictimsandwitnessestodeterminetheirrisk

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

APPENDICES

54

1(Low)

2

3

4(High)

thatallowthemtomakeajudgmentaboutsafetyrisk.Thesedeterminationsarebasedonprofessionalexperience.Thisinformationisused,perhapsinconsistently,todefinesafetyplansforvictimsandwitnesses.

judgments aboutsafetyrisk.Thesedeterminationsarebasedonprofessionalexperience.Thisinformationisusedtodefinesafetyplansforvictimsandwitnesses.Plansmaybeunderwaytovalidatetheseprotocolsandconvertthemintoformalassessments.

levels.These toolsmaybefocusedonspecifictypesofthreatsorcases,suchasdomesticviolence.Nonetheless,allat‐riskvictimsandwitnessesareassessed.Theseassessmentshappenseveraltimesthroughoutthelifeofacasetogaugechangesinthreatlevelsandresponsesforhigh‐riskindividualsareswiftandappropriate.

7 Createinformation‐sharingpoliciesthatlinkcriminaljusticeactorsandallowthemtoidentifypatternsofbehaviorandpossibleintimidationinindividualcases.

Therearenosystemsinplaceallowingacriminaljusticeprofessionaltoidentifypatternsofintimidationovertimeassociatedwithanindividual(eitherastheintimidatororintimidated).

Someinformationsystemscapturereportsofintimidationinwaysthataresearchableortrackable.Theirusemaybeinconsistent.Thesesystemsallowforsearcheswithinoneormorepartsofthecriminaljusticecontinuum,butarenotintegratedandnotreadilyavailabletoprofessionalsthroughoutthesystem.

Informationsystemsthroughoutthecriminaljusticecontinuumcapturereportsofintimidationinwaysthataresearchableortrackable.Theirusemaybeinconsistent.Withsomeeffort,thesesystemshavebeenusedtobuildaprofileofintimidatingbehaviorovertime

Informationsystemsareinplacethat(1)identifyanddocumentwitnessintimidationand(2)providesystemstakeholderswithseamlessaccesstohistoricalcomplaintsbyoraboutthesamepeople.Staffcanseeintimidationcomplaintsovertimeforasingleindividualandassesstheescalationofa

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

APPENDICES

55

1(Low)

2

3

4(High)

relatedtoaspecificcase.

threat.Thesedataalsofollowvictims,witnesses,anddefendantsthroughoutthecaseprocess.Thisinformationsystemmayinvolveamixtureofhigh‐andlow‐techstrategies,buttheinformationdoesflowseamlesslyandrapidlythroughoutthesystem.

8 Makeallreasonableeffortstominimizecontactbetweenvictims/witnessesanddefendants/offendersthroughoutthecriminaljusticesystem.

Nospecializedeffortsareinplacetoseparatevictims/witnessesfromoffendersatanystageofthecriminaljusticecontinuum.No‐contactordersarerarelyusedorgenerallynotenforced.

Specializedeffortstoseparatevictims/witnessesfromdefendants/offendersexistatsomestagesofthecriminaljusticecontinuum(e.g.,investigation).No‐contactordersareusedreadily,butenforcementisnotconsistent.

Specializedeffortstoseparatevictims/witnessesfromdefendants/offendersexistatallstagesofthecriminaljusticecontinuum(e.g.,investigation).However,theymaynotbeappliedconsistently.No‐contactordersareamonganumberofcommunity‐basedsafetystrategies.Theymaybeusedregularlybutnotconsistently.

Throughoutthecriminaljusticecontinuum,victims/witnessesareinsulatedfromoffendersaspartofthewitnesssafetyresponse.Thisseparationincludesconventionaleffortssuchasseparationduringinvestigationandinterviews,monitoringcommunicationswhenthepotentialintimidatorisdetained,physicalseparationin

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

APPENDICES

56

1(Low)

2

3

4(High)

courthousesanddetentionfacilities,availabilityofshort‐andlong‐termrelocation,andissuanceofno‐contactorders.Inaddition,innovativeandcreativeapproacheshaveevolvedthatcontinuetopromoteappropriateseparationasaneffectivesafetystrategy.

9 Createasafespaceintheircourthouses.

Courthouseshavestandardsecuritymeasuresinplace.Victimsandwitnessesarenotsystematicallyseparatedandtherearenotargetedmeasuresinplacetopreventintimidation.Securityinthecourthousemayperiodicallyinterveneincasesofovertintimidation.

Courthouseshavestandardsecuritymeasuresinplace.Therearesomeadditionalmeasuresinplacetoelevatevictimandwitnessprotectioninhighriskcases.Ifrequestedbyindividualvictimsorwitnessesortheiradvocates,courtsecuritymayfocusattentiononspecificindividuals.Thevisitingpublicisnotgenerallyawareofsafetymeasuresinplace.

Allcourthouseareasareregularlymonitoredforintimidatingbehavior.Theremaybesomesignageorotherindicationoftheconsequencestointimidation.Responsestointimidationarenottrackedconsistentlybyperpetratororvictim/witness.

Courthouses,includingcourtrooms,hallways,entrances,andgrounds,aregenerallyfreefromthreats–bothovertandimplicit.Visitorstothecourthousegenerallyfeelsafeandareawareofsomeofthesafetymechanismsinaction.Theyalsounderstandthepenaltiesforintimidation.Keystrategiesinclude:(1)signageandliteraturesettinggroundrulesfor

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

APPENDICES

57

1(Low)

2

3

4(High)

behaviorandpenaltiesforintimidation;(2)activeandvisiblesecurity,whoidentify,report,andtrackpatternsofintimidation;and(3)securewaitingareasforvictimsandwitnesses.

10 Trackprogressandoutcomesandusethosedatatoinformsystemimprovement.

Thecriminaljusticesystemdoesnotsystematicallydocumenttheprevalenceofwitnessintimidation.Theinfrastructuretocollectsuchdatamaynotbeinplaceormayfragmented.

Thecriminaljusticesystemhasbeguntoidentifyindicatorsoftheprevalenceofwitnessintimidation,butcomprehensiveprocessandoutcomesarenotyetinplaceorcannoteasilybemeasuredusingcurrentinformationsystems.Availabledataisusedbyacoordinatingworkgrouptomakedecisions,buteffortstobuildbetterinformationsystemsarestillunderway.

Thecriminaljusticesystemhasdefinedkey,quantifiablemetricsforsuccessandmeasuresthoseonanongoingbasis.Measurementsindicateprevalenceofidentifiedintimidation.Theremaybesomequalitativemeasures,suchassurveysandfocusgroups.Thedataarereviewedregularlybyacoordinatingworkgroup.Futureresponsesandimprovementsaredrivenbythesedata.

Thecriminaljusticesystemhasdefinedkey,quantifiablemetricsforsuccessandmeasuresthoseonanongoingbasis.Measurementfocusesonvulnerabilitiesoropportunitiesforintimidation,andontheprevalenceofidentifiedintimidation.Methodsfordatacollectionalsoincludequalitativemeasures,suchassurveysofandfocusgroupswithvictimsandwitnesses.Becauseoftheimportanceofcommunity‐basedintimidation,the

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

APPENDICES

58

1(Low)

2

3

4(High)

generalpublicisalsoincludedinthisongoinganalysis.Thedataarereviewedregularlybythecoordinatingworkgroup.Futureresponsesandimprovementsaredrivenbythesedata.

Backtotext

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

APPENDICES

59

APPENDIXH.SMARTOBJECTIVES36

Backtotext 36 GeorgeT.Doran,G.T.There'sAS.M.A.R.T.WayToWriteManagement'sGoalsAndObjectives,70MANAGEMENTREVIEW(AMAFORUM)35‐36(1981).

SMARTOBJECTIVESOneofthemostwellknownmethodsforsettingobjectivesisSMART.BelowwediscusseachoftheprinciplesofSMARTobjectivesanddiagnosticquestionstoguidethedevelopmentoftheseobjectives.

Specific Measurable Achievable Realistic Time‐Boundconcrete,

detailed,andwell‐defined

quantifiableand

comparable

feasible,actionable

consideringresources

definedtimelines,deadlines

Specific:Theobjectiveisconcrete,detailed,focused,andwelldefined.Itisstraightforwardandemphasizesactionandoutcomes. Whatexactlyarewegoingtodo? Whatstrategieswillbeused? Istheobjectivedescribedasactionable? Istheoutcomeclear?Willthisobjectiveleadtothedesiredresults?Achievable:Objectivesneedtobeachievable.Settingreachableobjectivesiscriticaltomaintainingmotivationamongallthoseinvolvedinanactionplan.Eventhoughtheyareobtainable,objectivesstillneedtostretchandchallengeateamtobecreative. Canwegetitdoneintheproposedtimeframe? Doweunderstandthelimitationsandconstraints? Isthispossible?Hasanyoneelsedonethissuccessfully?Realistic:Theachievementofanobjectiverequiresresources,suchasskills,money,andequipment,tosupportthetasksrequiredtoachievetheobjective. Dowehavetheresourcesavailabletoachievethisobjective? Doweneedtorevisitprioritiesinotherareastomakethishappen? Isitpossibletoachievethisobjective?Measurable:Measurableobjectivesallowustotracktheresultsofouractions,asweprogresstowardsachievingourgoals.Ifyoucannotmeasureit,youcannotmanageit!Measurementhelpsusknowwhenwehaveachievedourobjective. Howwillweknowthatthechangehasoccurred? Canthesemeasurementsbeobtained?Time‐Bound:Deadlinescreateanimportantsenseofurgencyandencourageaction. Whenwillthisobjectivebeaccomplished? Isthereastateddeadline?

1100 H S�� NW, S�� 310 | W��, DC 20005 Main | 202-558-0040 Fax | 202-393-1918

��.AE��R��.��

© 2013 AEquitas: The Prosecutors’ Resource on Violence Against Women, a project of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape.

Main | 202-558-0040 Fax | 202-393-1918

T�� P��’ R�� V�� A�� W��

1100 H S�� NW, S�� 310W��, DC 20005

��.AE��R��.��

This project was supported by Grant No. 2010-MU-BX-K079 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Of�ice of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Of�ice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the SMART Of�ice, and the Of�ice for Victims of Crime. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the authors and do not represent the of�icial position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The information provided in this publication is for educational purposes only and is not intended to provide legal advice to any individual or entity.

AEquitas: The Prosecutors’ Resource on Violence Against Women

1100 H Street NW, Suite 310Washington, DC 20005Main | 202-499-0314Fax | 202-393-1918www. AEquitasResource.org

The Justice Management Institute

DC Area Office 1400 North 14th Street Floor 12Arlington, VA 22209Main | 720-235-0121www.JMIJustice.org

AuthorsFranklin Cruz Senior Program ManagerJustice Management Institute

Teresa M. GarveyAttorney Advisor AEquitas: The Prosecutors’ Resource on Violence Against Women

AcknowledgmentsThe concepts, ideas, and tools in this publication are in no small measure products of the hard work and dedication of all the partners involved in the Improving the Justice System Response to Witness Intimidation Initiative, a project of AEquitas: The Prosecutors’ Resource on Violence Against Women with support from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. We extend special thanks not only to the dedicated staff of AEquitas but also to: local practitioners in Duluth, MN; Knoxville, TN; and San Diego, CA whose work with AEquitas and whose safety and accountability audits shaped much of what is contained here; the Battered Women’s Justice Project, whose staff participated in and recorded many of the audit activities; and the experts who reviewed the information herein and provided input during the drafting process. The authors would like to acknowledge the significant contributions of Mary E. Asmus, Assistant City Attor-ney, Duluth, Minnesota City Attorney’s Office and Scott Miller, Blueprint Coordinator, Domestic Abuse Intervention Project. We also specially acknowledge the formidable work of Ellen Pence and Praxis International for advancing the field of safety for victims of domestic violence.

The authors would like to acknowledge the varied and candid feedback of the following peer reviewers whose contributions helped to chal-lenge and improve the quality of this resource: Audrey Roofeh, Training and Technical Assistance Coordinator, National Human Trafficking Resource Center, Polaris Project; Robert Laurino, Acting First Assistant Prosecutor, Essex County Prosecutors Office; Caroline Palmer, Law and Policy Manager, Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault; Christian A. Fisanick, Chief of the Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, whose opinions reflected in this publication are his own and not necessarily those of the U.S. Department of Justice; Denise Gamache, Director, Battered Women’s Justice Project; Edward F McCann, Jr., Deputy District Attorney, Philadelphia District Attorneys Office; Joyce Lukima, Vice-President, Services, Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape/National Sexual Violence Resource Center; Sheryl Golstein, Program Director, Education, The Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Foundation, Inc.; Steven Jansen, Vice-President, Association of Prosecuting Attorneys; Wanda Lucibello, Chief of the Special Victims Division in the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office, Kings County District Attorneys Office. The inclusion of individuals here as peer reviewer does not indicate their endorsement of this final product but their contri-butions were sincerely appreciated.

This publication was produced by the Justice Management Institute and AEquitas and supported by grant number 2010-MU-BX-K079, awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this product are those of the contributors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

© 2014 AEquitas: The Prosecutors’ Resource on Violence Against Women, a project of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape and Justice Management Institute

Improving Witness Safety and Preventing Witness Intimidation in the Justice System: Benchmarks for ProgressÆ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ

Æ

ÆÆ��

Æ