Transcript Investigation process

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
–
–
–

Systems are not linear – some processes take place
simultaneously (in parallel)
–

Prosecution
Courts (adjudication)
Social services
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 followup 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
Arrest
Complaint
• Misdemeanors
• Felony – waive
preliminary exam
• Grand jury indictment
Trial
Preliminary
examination
Input:
Arrest

Always requires probable cause that:
–
–

A crime/public offense was committed
Accused is the perpetrator
Without a warrant
–
–

(Calif. P.C. §836)
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)

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 (§861-866)

One-day “mini-trial” led by the prosecution
–


Purpose: determine whether there is probable
cause that defendant committed a felony
Generally no testimony by the defense
–
–

Full cross-examination
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
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
Vote: Innocent or guilty of murder?
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 1989. On
November 6, 2002 Hornoff, who was serving a life
sentence, was released after Todd Barry, a selfemployed 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.”