Investigation process and environment \wrongful...\efren cruz.wmv 3:11...\eric rudolph.wmv 3:03...\richard jewell.wmv 1:52 \michael jackson\\two jurors interview 5:17...\legal expert interview.wmv 3:00

Two simple questions with the same simple answer... What is the purpose of a criminal investigation? What is the goal of a criminal investigator?

To discover the truth! NOT to meet a legal standard, such as “beyond a reasonable doubt” NOT to please superiors NOT to get the public off the agency’s back NOT to satisfy victims or exact retribution The investigation process is full of pitfalls – your only goal is to discover the truth!

Course objectives To become informed about methods and practices used by police to conduct criminal investigations To learn the pitfalls and limits of these methods and practices To become informed about problematic issues that can adversely affect the investigation process

Investigation system Input  Process  Output

Systems theory: A way to analyze the police Input  process  output Output is input for other systems – Prosecution – Courts (adjudication) – Social services Systems are not linear – some processes take place simultaneously (in parallel) – Investigation may continue until trial begins Police successful only if output leads to a social gain

Input for criminal investigators: Information, “investigative leads” A crime has been, is being or will be committed Sources (one or more) – Ordinary citizens – Participants in a crime – Victims of a crime – Informants – Patrol, dispatch, detectives, other agencies Always question witness motivation and accuracy – Hidden agendas – Observation and recall You are dispatched on a shots fired call. The only information you have is that two gangs were fighting on the second level of a downtown parking structure, multiple shots were fired and two persons are down. You arrive at the garage almost immediately. Driving into the parking structure you find Efren Cruz dazed and wandering around the ground level. No one else is present.

Process: Preliminary Investigation Determine if there is a strong likelihood that a crime has been/is being/will be committed Determine whether the situation is sufficiently serious to warrant government intervention Determine the nature and degree of attention that will be given – Law enforcement? – Other agencies? Preserve evidence for follow- up investigation You detain Cruz and drive one level up, to the bar entrance. There are two persons down – one is dead from gunshots, the other wounded. Both are known gang members. You search the area and find a.38 caliber revolver on the ground. There is no one else to detain. There is one witness, Kenneth Freese, who was pulling out of the garage and thinks he might have seen the shooter. He can’t tell whether it is the person in your patrol car.

Process: Follow-up investigation Output: Criminal case Determine whether a crime has IN FACT been committed Identify the perpetrators, other participants and all victims (may be more) Acquire and assemble evidence using available tools and techniques – Must be admissible as proof in a criminal proceeding – Must be gathered in a legal way Assist the adjudication process The bar has a surveillance camera. The videotape, which is grainy and indistinct, shows Cruz and several companions earlier that evening. Cruz has no police record and is not a known gang member. His companions, including his cousin, Gerardo Reyes, are members of the Colonia gang, rivals of the victims. You show this videotape to Mr. Freese, who identifies Cruz as the shooter. Cruz has gunshot residue on his hands. He also has an illegal dagger and a small amount of cocaine.

Adjudication system Input  Process  Output

Misdemeanors Felony – waive preliminary exam Grand jury indictment ArrestComplaint Preliminary examination Trial

Input: Arrest (Calif. P.C. §836)Calif. P.C. §836 Always requires probable cause that: – A crime/public offense was committed – Accused is the perpetrator Without a warrant – For any public offense in officer’s presence – For any felony, whether or not in presence With a warrant – For any public offense

Process: Complaint (§849) (§859a) (§849)(§859a) Must be filed by arresting officer in court – Without unnecessary delay Once defendant has an attorney, he/she enters a plea If pleads not guilty, process continues – Misdemeanor: directly to trial – Felony: preliminary examination

Process: Preliminary examination (§ ) (§ ) One-day “mini-trial” led by the prosecution – Full cross-examination Purpose: determine whether there is probable cause that defendant committed a felony Generally no testimony by the defense – Only at judge’s discretion – Only if likely to establish innocence or impeach prosecution witness Usually only officers testify – Bring in statements of others through hearsay

Process: Trial Opening statements – not evidence Prosecution’s “case in chief” Defense case Rebuttal by both sides Closing arguments – not evidence Judge charges jury

Output: Verdict Must prove the actual charges – Juries are very picky “Propensity” is not enough – It’s not about the “person” – it’s about the conduct – Smearing suspects with allegations of past behavior is a poor substitute for evidence that they committed the acts charged Witness credibility is crucial

Investigation environment

Investigations are affected by many issues other than evidence... Quality of policing – Ignorance, laziness, jumping to conclusions – “The usual suspects” – Pressures to solve cases Cooperation from witnesses and victims – Fear of reprisal – Lack of cooperation, esp. in consensual crimes – Mistakes, lying Legal constraints – Probable cause requirements – Exclusionary rule – Restrictions on interrogation Agency resources – Time, manpower – Material (money, equipment) – Limitations on science

Pressures to make arrests Generalized pressures to reduce crime – New York City - Pressures of aggressive bureaucratic techniques such as “Compstat” on managers and subordinates, leading to under-reporting – Attributing excessive clearances to one suspect Pressures to solve or “clear” high-profile cases – FBI – Atlanta Olympics bombing – FBI – Arrest of Muslim attorney in Oregon

Vote: Innocent or guilty of murder? Efren Cruz went to trial He denied shooting anyone and said that he didn’t see the shooting take place The witness did not identify Cruz. But, he testified that the person on the video (a grainy view of Cruz) was the shooter Gunshot residue was found on Cruz’s hands Cruz also had a dagger and a small amount of cocaine The found revolver was the murder weapon. It could not be connected to anyone

Efren Cruz was innocent – the eyewitness was wrong Gerardo Reyes, a hard-core gangster, admitted the shooting in a secret tape. Cruz did not snitch on Reyes because he was his cousin Cruz was released after serving 4½ years in Pelican Bay prison. His lawsuit against Santa Barbara was settled. Santa Barbara News-Press, 11/2/04

Jeffrey Scott Hornoff In 1996 Hornoff, then a detective with the Warwick, R.I. Police Department, was arrested and convicted of murdering Victoria E. Cushman in On November 6, 2002 Hornoff, who was serving a life sentence, was released after Todd Barry, a self- employed contractor, admitted he was responsible. Barry’s brother confirmed that Todd had confessed to him many years ago. Hornoff was convicted because the victim, with whom he had an affair, wrote a letter refusing to break off their relationship, and demanding that he divorce his wife. Hornoff lied about the affair during the investigation, and the lies came back to haunt him at the trial. Supposedly the letter was a motive for murder. But there was absolutely nothing else tying Hornoff to the crime. Todd Barry, who was well acquainted with the victim and her family, had never been investigated.

Soon after the 1996 Olympics bombing, the FBI searched the home of Richard Jewell, the security guard who discovered the bomb in Atlanta’s Centennial Park before it went off. Lacking a suspect, FBI agents tried to get Jewell to waive his rights by claiming that the interrogation was merely a “training exercise”. But Jewell refused to confess. Months after searching his home the FBI finally backed off. Two years later, in 1998, persons who witnessed the bombing of an Alabama abortion clinic followed the bomber and got his license plate number. The vehicle was registered to Eric Rudolph. In 2003, after hiding in the woods for five years, Rudolph was arrested by a rookie cop who caught him rummaging through a supermarket dumpster. He pled guilty to the Olympics bombing and three abortion clinic bombings, including one that killed an off-duty police officer. Rudolph got four life sentences. The FBI issued a half-hearted apology to Jewell and disciplined four agents. Jewell sued several news organizations for defamation and received substantial settlements. He is now a police officer in a small town.

Florida Detective Fired After Charges of False Reports (AP, 4/10/2005) “A sheriff's detective was fired after being charged with falsifying documents in police reports. He is the third official charged in the state attorney's 17-month probe into allegations that Broward County sheriff's deputies closed cases by attributing them to people who could not have committed the crimes. Joe Isabella, 34, was fired Thursday after he told investigators he had improperly cleared cases and falsified reports. He was charged with a misdemeanor count of falsifying documents and is scheduled to be arraigned on Monday. He blamed pressure from supervisors who wanted to lower crime statistics. If convicted, he faces up to a year in jail, but is not expected to serve time because he does not have a record. The two other deputies were arrested in December and suspended with pay. They have pleaded not guilty.”