Æ Æ Æ Improving Witness Safety and Preventing Witness Intimidation in the Justice System: Benchmarks for Progress Æ Æ Æ Æ AEquitas: The Prosecutors’ Resource on Violence Against Women 1100 H Street NW, Suite 310 Washington, DC 20005 Main | 202-499-0314 Fax | 202-393-1918 www. AEquitasResource.org The Justice Management Institute DC Area Office 1400 North 14th Street Floor 12 Arlington, VA 22209 Main | 720-235-0121 www.JMIJustice.org Authors Franklin Cruz Senior Program Manager T�� R������� JusticeP����������’ Management Institute V������� A������ W���� �� Teresa M. Garvey Attorney Advisor AEquitas: The Prosecutors’ Resource on Violence Against Women 1100 H S����� NW, S���� 310 Acknowledgments W���������, DC 20005 The 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 Main | 202-558-0040 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, Fax | 202-393-1918 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 Attorney, Duluth, Minnesota City Attorney’s Office and Scott Miller, Blueprint Coordinator, Domestic Abuse Intervention Project. We also specially ���.AE������R�������.��� 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 challenge 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 and2013 Policy Manager, Minnesota Coalition AgainstResource Sexual Assault; A. Fisanick, Chief of the Criminal Division, © AEquitas: The Prosecutors’ onChristian Violence Against Women, a project ofU.S. theAttorney’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 Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape. 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; This was supported by Grant No. 2010-MU-BX-K079 the Bureau ofVice-President, Justice Sherylproject Golstein, Program Director, Education, The Harry and Jeanette Weinbergawarded Foundation,by Inc.; Steven Jansen, Association of Prosecuting Attorneys; Wanda Lucibello, Chief of the Special Victims Division in the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office, Kings County District Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Of�ice of Justice Programs, Attorneys Office. The inclusion of individuals here as peer reviewer does not indicate their endorsement of this final product but their contriwhich also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Of�ice of butions were sincerely appreciated. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the SMART Of�ice, and the Of�ice for Victims of This publication the JusticeinManagement Instituteare andthose AEquitas grant 2010-MU-BX-K079, Crime. Pointswas of produced view or by opinions this document ofand thesupported authorsbyand donumber not represent awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or the of�icial position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 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. The information provided in this publication is for educational purposes only and is not intended © 2014 AEquitas: The Prosecutors’ Resource on Violence Against Women, a project of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape and Justice to provide legal advice to any individual or entity. Management Institute 1100 H S����� NW, S���� 310 | W���������, DC 20005 Main | 202-558-0040 Fax | 202-393-1918 ���.AE������R�������.��� Table of Contents TableofContents Introduction...............................................................................................................................................................................1 PartI.DefiningtheProblem:VictimandWitnessIntimidation...........................................................................3 Howprevalentisvictimandwitnessintimidation?.............................................................................................4 Whatdoesintimidationlooklike?...............................................................................................................................4 Physicalviolence............................................................................................................................................................4 Explicitthreats................................................................................................................................................................5 Implicitthreatsandmenacingconduct................................................................................................................5 Emotionalmanipulation.............................................................................................................................................6 IntimidationpromotedbyunethicaldefenseCounsel...................................................................................7 Whoisvulnerabletointimidation?.............................................................................................................................7 Victimsofdomesticviolence.....................................................................................................................................7 Witnessestoorganizedcrime‐organg‐relatedviolence..............................................................................7 Humantraffickingvictims..........................................................................................................................................7 Immigrants.......................................................................................................................................................................8 Childandjuvenilevictimsandwitnesses............................................................................................................8 Victimsandwitnessesininstitutionalsettings.................................................................................................8 Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................................................9 PartII.IdentifyingSolutions:IntegratingVictimandWitnessSafetyIntoCriminalJusticeSystems10 Frameworkforchartingprogressinensuringsafety........................................................................................10 Commonsafetyvulnerabilitiesincriminaljusticesystems............................................................................11 Bestpracticeprinciplesforsystemiccriminaljusticesafetyresponses....................................................14 PracticePrinciple1.Planandimplementahighly‐visiblecoordinatedjusticesystemresponse tovictimandwitnessintimidationthatspansthetimefrominitialreportofacrimethrough post‐releasesupervisionoftheoffender...........................................................................................................15 PracticePrinciple2.Usecommunity‐basedapproachestobuildtrustwithneighborhood residentsandtoencouragereportingofinformationaboutcriminalincidentsincluding intimidation....................................................................................................................................................................16 PracticePrinciple3.Educatevictimsandwitnessesaboutwitnessintimidation...........................16 PracticePrinciple4.Equipcriminaljusticeleadershipandstaffwithanoperationalknowledge ofintimidationandsafety........................................................................................................................................17 PracticePrinciple5.Maintainconsistentteamofcriminaljusticeactorsthatworkswith victimsandwitnessestobuildtrustandrespondholisticallytotheirneeds....................................17 PracticePrinciple6.Usebothobjectiveassessmentsandinputfromvictimsandwitnessesto determineriskofandvulnerabilitytointimidation.Usetheassessmentsandinputtoinform witnesssafetyefforts.................................................................................................................................................18 Æ PracticePrinciple7.Createinformation‐sharingpoliciesthatlinkjusticesystemactorsand allowthemtoidentifypatternsofbehaviorandpossibleintimidationinindividualcases........19 i Æ Æ Æ PracticePrinciple8.Makeallreasonableeffortstominimizecontactbetween victims/witnessesanddefendantsthroughoutthejusticesystemprocess......................................20 PracticePrinciple9.Createasafespaceincourthouses............................................................................21 PracticePrinciple10.Tracktheprogressandoutcomesofeffortsandusethatinformationto informsystemimprovement..................................................................................................................................22 Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................................................22 PartIII.ImplementingChange:AProcessforWitnessSafetyAssessmentandImprovement.............24 Backgroundonmethodology.......................................................................................................................................24 ActionStep1.Ensurethatthejusticesystemhasthecapacitytochange...............................................25 ActionStep2.Conveneanactionteamtoguidetheassessmentandleadimplementation............26 ActionStep3.Definethecurrentstateofvictimandwitnesssafety.........................................................26 Determining“opportunitiesforintimidation”.................................................................................................27 Determining“documentedincidenceofwitnessintimidation”...............................................................28 ActionStep4.Compareexistingpracticetobestpractices...........................................................................29 ActionStep5.Developandimplementanactionableplan............................................................................29 ActionStep6.Monitor,evaluate,andimprovevictimandwitnesssafetyefforts................................32 Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................................................34 Appendices:Tools,Tables,andAdditionalResources...........................................................................................35 AppendixA:PartIIResources.....................................................................................................................................35 AppendixB:PartIIIResources...................................................................................................................................37 AppendixC.RubrictoAssessOperationalKnowledgeofVictimandWitnessSafetyAmong CriminalJusticePractitioners......................................................................................................................................38 AppendixD.IndicatorsofReadinesstoChange.................................................................................................42 AppendixE.ProtocolforAssessingandQuantifying“OpportunitiesforIntimidation”....................43 AppendixF.Information‐GatheringStrategiesforDeterminingSystemAlignmenttotheBest PracticePrinciples............................................................................................................................................................46 Æ Æ Æ AppendixG.RubrictoDetermineAdherencetoBestPracticePrinciples...............................................49 AppendixH.SMARTObjectives..................................................................................................................................59 Æ ii IMPROVING WITNESS SAFETY AND PREVENTING WITNESS INTIMIDATION IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM: BENCHMARKS FOR PROGRESS Introduction Imagineyourselfasavictimofaviolentcrime.Youarephysicallyinjuredandyouaretraumatizedby theevent.Youfearforyourownsafetyandthatofyourlovedones.Youstrugglewiththeemotions andotherpsychologicaleffectsthatoftenfollowatraumaticevent.Youwonder,shouldyougotothe police?Willthatputeveryoneinmoredanger? Next,imaginethatsomeonehasreachedouttoyoutohelpyou.Heasksyoudetailedquestionsabout thecrime.Youareuncomfortablerelivingtheevent,butyougothroughwithitbecausethispersonis heretohelpyou.Whatwillhappenifthisinformationisshared?Thispersonconcludesthemeetingby talkingaboutavailableresourcesshouldyouneedtotalktosomeoneorshouldyoufeelindanger again.Youtrytotellhimyouarescaredbuthedoesn’twriteanythingdownbecausenothingspecific hashappenedyet.Hegivesyouhiscardandthenleaves.Threedayslateranotherpersonasksto speakwithyouaspartofaninvestigationintothecrime.Sheasksyouthesamequestionsandgives youdifferentinformationaboutwheretogoforhelp.Youdon’ttellheryouarescared.Youcallthe firstpersonwhovisitedyoutoaskforhelpinsortingoutwhatishappening,butheisnotavailable. Youareinformedthatsomeoneelsehastakenyourcase,soyouaretransferredtothatperson.She asksyoumorequestionsinordertogettoknowyou.Someofthequestionsarethesameonesyou havenowansweredtwicebefore.Howwouldyoufeelnow?Whatwouldyouthinkofthesepeople whosaytheyareheretohelpyou? Nowimagineyouarecompelledtositinthesameroomwiththeindividualwhoattackedyou.The individualcan’tgetupandhurtyouphysically,butcanspeaktoyou,gestureandsendyoumessages throughtextorsocialmedia.Howwouldyoufeel?Whatwouldyouthinkofthepeoplewhoforced youintothatsituation? Theaboveisahypotheticalsituationthatonlyscratchesthesurfaceoftherealitiesthatvictimsand witnesses1faceinourjusticesystemseveryday.Fromourprofessionalexperiences,weknowthat manyperpetratorsofviolentcrimesintimidate,harass,threaten,andmanipulatevictimsand witnessesinordertoavoidarrestandprosecution.Lessrecognizedishowthecriminaljustice systemitselfmayfacilitateintimidationwhenconducting“businessasusual.”Theconventional processofarrest,adjudication,andsentencinginvolvesfrequentinstancesofbringing victims/witnessesandoffenderstogether.Signsofintimidationareoftenmissedduringthese instances,whichcompromisestrustandconfidenceinthesystem.Justicesystemsacrossthe countryhavenotkeptpacewithbestpracticesonvictimandwitnesssafety,despitewidespread recognitionthatpromotingsuchsafetyiscriticaltotheadministrationofjustice. Thepervasiveproblemofvictim/witnessintimidationincriminaljusticesystemsisonethat requiresastrategyforchangeandfirmcommitmentsfromleadersandpractitionersalike.This Resource,PreventingWitnessIntimidationandImprovingWitnessSafetyintheCriminal JusticeSystem:BenchmarksforProgress,includestoolsforpractitionerstousecollaboratively withintheircommunities.Thesetoolsareintendedtoprovidecriminaljusticeleaderswith concreteguidancetoimplementbestpracticesinprovidingforvictimandwitnesssafety.While manyexperiencedjusticesystemprofessionalsareknowledgeableaboutintimidation,fartoomany incidentsarestillmissed,misjudged,orotherwiseleftunaddressedduetoalackofcollaboration Æ 1ThroughoutthisResourcethetermsvictimandwitnessintimidationwillbeusedtogetherandsometimessimply representedaswitnessintimidation.Theuseof“witnessintimidation”isnotintendedtoexcludevictims. 1 Æ Æ Æ IMPROVING WITNESS SAFETY AND PREVENTING WITNESS INTIMIDATION IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM: BENCHMARKS FOR PROGRESS andstrugglingtorespondtothispervasiveyetundetectedcrime.Practitioners,therefore,mayalso findthispublicationhelpfulindevelopingorreinforcingtheirknowledgeofintimidation,ortheir colleagues’—bothinsideandoutsideofthecriminaljusticesystem—anddiscoveringwhatother jurisdictionshavedonetopromotevictimandwitnesssafety.ThisResourcewasproducedthrough acollaborationbetweenAEquitas:TheProsecutors’ResourceonViolenceAgainstWomen (AEquitas)andtheJusticeManagementInstitute(JMI)andwassignificantlyinformedbythe initiativeonImprovingtheJusticeSystemResponsetoWitnessIntimidation(IWI)2pilotsites: Knoxville,TN;Duluth,MNandSanDiego,CA.TheIWIworklookednotonlyatvictimandwitness safetyinthecontextofdomesticviolencebutalsoincasesofgang‐relatedviolence.ThisResource, whichintendstoprovideabroad‐basedresourceforsafeguardingwitnesssafety,isdividedinto threeparts: PartI.DefiningtheProblem:VictimandWitnessIntimidation.Thispartprovidesa briefoverviewofwitnessintimidation,thevariousformsofintimidation,andcommon characteristicsofvictimsandperpetratorsofintimidation. PartII.IdentifyingSolutions:IntegratingVictimandWitnessSafetyIntoCriminal JusticeSystems.ThispartpresentsaConceptualModeltomeasuretheprevalenceofactual intimidationinanyjurisdiction.Additionally,thissectionmapsoutcommonopportunities forintimidationaswellasgapsinvictimandwitnesssafety.Themapdrawsfromliterature onvictimandwitnessintimidationandbuildsontheexperienceoftheIWI’sthreepilot sites.Finally,tenbestpracticeprinciplesareidentified,againstwhichjurisdictionscan assessandcomparetheirownsystemresponses.Theseprinciplesalsodrawfromthe literatureandfromtheexperienceofIWI’sthreepilotsites.However,theseprinciples providemorethanjustsuggestionsforspecificresponses.Theyhavebeenstructuredinthe formofauser‐friendlyandadaptabletoolforpractitionerstoassessthealignmentoftheir responsestointimidationwiththeseprinciples,andtodocumenttheirprogressovertime astheyimplementchange. PartIII.ImplementingChange:AProcessforWitnessSafetyAssessmentand Improvement.Thispartlaysoutsixactionstepsforimplementingchange,describesa research‐informedmethodology,andprovidestoolstobegintheprocessforchangethat includesmonitoring,evaluating,andimprovingvictimandwitnesssafetyefforts.Inthis partoftheResource,criminaljusticeleaderswillfindastep‐by‐stepguidetoassessment anddiagnosis,actionplanning,andmonitoringandsustainingchange. 2ThisInitiativeisafield‐initiatedprojectfundedbytheU.S.DepartmentofJustice,OfficeofJusticePrograms,Bureauof Æ JusticeAssistance.Formoreinformationonthisinitiativepleasevisit,http://aequitasresource.org/Improving‐the‐ Justice‐System‐Response‐to‐Witness‐Intimidation.cfm. Æ Æ Æ 2 IMPROVING WITNESS SAFETY AND PREVENTING WITNESS INTIMIDATION IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM: BENCHMARKS FOR PROGRESS PartI.DefiningtheProblem:VictimandWitnessIntimidation3 Witnessintimidationcanhindertheinvestigationandprosecutionofanycriminalcase,butit presentspredictablechallengesincertaincategoriesofcrime.Wherethedefendanthasapre‐ existingrelationshipwiththevictim,orincasesinvolvinggangsororganizedcrime,thedefendant oftenhastheability,directlyorindirectly,tocontinuetoinflictharmupon,ortoexerciseinfluence over,thevictimorwitnesslongaftertheprecipitatingcriminalact.Victimsofdomesticviolence areroutinelythreatenedandmanipulatedbytheirabuserstodropchargesortorefuseto cooperatewithlawenforcement.Familymembersmaypressurevictimsofelderabuseorchild victimsofsexualassaulttorecanttheirallegations.Humantraffickingvictims,orcooperating witnessesinsuchcases,arevulnerabletothreatsbytraffickersortheirassociates.Victimsof,or witnessesto,organizedcrimeorgang‐relatedviolence,whooftenmustcontinuetoresideinthe sameneighborhood—aneighborhoodthatmaybeunderthedefactocontrolofthegangorcriminal organization—arelabeled“snitches”andtherebymadetargetsforintimidationandreprisal. Victimsofcrimesthatoccurininstitutionalsettings,suchasschools,hospitals,orprisons,maybe forcedtocontinueinteractingwithassociatesoftheirabusersonadailybasis. Witnessintimidationcan,andoftendoes,resultinfailuretoreportcrimes,refusaltospeakwith investigators,recantationofstatementspreviouslygiven,andrefusaltotestifyattrial.Some victimswilltestifyinfavorofthedefendant—activelyopposingtheprosecution’scaseandclaiming thattheyliedtopoliceorwerecoercedbypoliceintofalselyimplicatingthedefendant.Some witnesseswillclaimaFifthAmendmentprivilegeinanefforttoavoidtestifying,evenwhenthereis novalidlegalbasistoasserttheprivilege.Somewitnesseswillsimplydisappearpriortotrial, fearingfortheirownsafetyorthatoftheirfamiliesiftheytestifyagainstthedefendant. Althoughwitnessintimidationmostoftenoccurspriortotrialorduringthetrialitself,intimidation andreprisaldonotnecessarilyendwhenthedefendantisfoundguiltyandsentenced.Whethera defendantreceivesanoncustodialsentenceorisimprisonedinamaximum‐securityfacility,heor shemaycontinuetostalk,threaten,orintimidatevictimsandwitnesses,withtheaimofsecuringa post‐convictionrecantation,toretaliateagainstthemfortheircooperationwithlawenforcement, ortosendamessagetoothersabouttheconsequencesofcooperation. Witnessintimidationis“behaviorwhichstrikesattheheartofthejusticesystemitself.”4When intimidationispermittedtooccur,andwhenitisnoteffectivelyaddressedbythesystemofjustice, victimsandwitnessessufferadditionalharm,defendantsescapeaccountabilityfortheiractions, andthegeneralpublicbecomescynicalandlosesconfidenceinlawenforcement.Criminalsbecome emboldened,confidentintheirabilitytocontinuetheircriminalactivitieswithimpunity,while victimsandwitnessesdecideitisnotworththerisktoreportcrimesortocooperatewithlaw enforcement.Lawenforcementprofessionalsbecomediscouragedandfrustratedbywitnesses whowithholdinformationorrecantthestatementstheyhavealreadygiven.Whenwitness intimidationresultsinamistrialordisturbsaconviction,theresultisacostlyre‐trial.Toallow 3PartIisadaptedfromTERESAGARVEY,AEQUITAS:THEPROSECUTOR’SRESOURCEONVIOLENCEAGAINSTWOMEN,WITNESS INTIMIDATION: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)). 3 Æ Æ Æ Æ IMPROVING WITNESS SAFETY AND PREVENTING WITNESS INTIMIDATION IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM: BENCHMARKS FOR PROGRESS witnessintimidationtogouncheckedistocompromisetheintegrityofthecriminaljusticeprocess overallanditsresponsibilitytopromotepublicsafety. HOWPREVALENTISVICTIMANDWITNESSINTIMIDATION? Accuratestatisticsonwitnessintimidationarehardtocomeby,inpartduetothedifficultyof identifyingandinterviewingthosewitnesseswhoaresubjecttotheworst,mosteffectiveformsof intimidation.Thestudiesthathavebeendonehaveinvolvedsamplesofvictimsandwitnessesin singlejurisdictionsoveradiscreteperiodoftime.Nevertheless,theinformationthatisavailable suggestsaproblemthatispervasiveandincreasing.AstudyofwitnessesinBronx,NewYork, publishedin1990,suggeststhat36percentofwitnessesweredirectlythreatenedandoverhalfof theremainingwitnessesfearedretaliation.5Otherresearchershavedocumentedmorequalitative assessmentsofthewitnessintimidationbycanvassinglawenforcementandprosecutors.Inthese studies,witnessintimidationissaidtooccurin75‐100percentofviolentcrimeinneighborhoods withastronggangpresence.Inotherneighborhoods,theprevalenceislowerbutstillsignificant.6 Inadditiontogang‐relatedcases,policeandprosecutorsfrequentlyidentifydomesticviolence victimsasbeingparticularlysusceptibletointimidationeffortsthatresultinwitnessreluctanceor refusaltotestify. WHATDOESINTIMIDATIONLOOKLIKE? Witnessintimidationcantakemanyforms,anditmaybedirectorindirect.Commonformsof intimidationincludeactsofphysicalviolence,verbalandnon‐verbalcommunicationofthreats, threatsimpliedbyconduct,andemotionalmanipulation.Actsofintimidationmaybeinfullviewof manywitnesses(asingang‐relatedorhumantraffickingcases,wheretheperpetratorwishesto influencemorethanasinglewitness—orthecommunityatlarge—withtheconsequencesof cooperatingwiththepolice),inprivatewithnooutsidewitnesses,orinpublicbutconcealedor disguisedsothatonlytheintendedtargetunderstandsthemessage.Anyformofintimidationmay becarriedoutbythedefendantpersonally,ormaybecarriedoutbyothersactingontheirbehalf, usually(thoughnotalways)withthedefendant’sknowledgeandconsent,ifnotontheirexplicit instructions.Regardlessoftheformittakes,itspurposeisinvariablythesame:toallowthe offendertoescapejusticebypreventingwitnesstestimonyorothercooperationwithlaw enforcement(e.g.,providinginformationorphysicalevidence,orevenobtainingmedicaltreatment thatmightresultinareporttolawenforcementanddisclosureofthecrime). Physicalviolence Directintimidationmayconsistofactualviolence,withorwithoutaccompanyingverbalthreats. Themostextremeexample,ofcourse,isthekillingofawitnesstopreventhimorherfrom cooperatingwiththepoliceorfromtestifyingincourt.Thisultimateactmayserveacriminal purposebeyondtheeliminationofthatwitness’stestimony,however.Particularlyincases involvinggangsorotherorganizedcriminalactivity,suchakillingmayhavetheintendedpurpose, andoftenhastheeffect,ofservingasawarningthatwilldeterotherwitnessesfromcoming forwardorcooperatingwithlawenforcement.Consideredinthiscontext,suchactsmayalsoresult intheintimidationofpotentialjurors,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. Æ 6K.HEALEY,NAT’LINST.OFJUSTICE,VICTIMANDWITNESSINTIMIDATION:NEWDEVELOPMENTSANDEMERGINGRESPONSES.RESEARCHIN ACTIONSERIES(1995),https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/witintim.pdf. Æ Æ Æ 4 IMPROVING WITNESS SAFETY AND PREVENTING WITNESS INTIMIDATION IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM: BENCHMARKS FOR PROGRESS andthepotentialformistrialorreversalonappealifjurorfearsvoicedduringthetrialor deliberationaffecttheabilityofthejurytoremainimpartial. Shortofcausingtheactualdeathofthewitness,lesseractsofviolencecanbejustaseffectivein preventingwitnessesfromcooperating.Abeating,wounding,orbrutalsexualassaultcarriesat leasttheimplicitthreatofcontinuedormoresevereviolenceifthewitnesspersistsincooperating withthepoliceorprosecution.Abatteredwoman,thrownacrosstheroomafterthepoliceleave thescenewithoutmakinganarrest,doesnotneedtohavethesignificanceofthatactspelledout.In neighborhoodsdominatedbygangsororganizedcrime,actsofviolenceagainstwitnessesnotonly discouragewitnesscooperationinthatwitness’scase,butdiscourageanyotherwitness cooperationwithrespecttoanyfuturecrimesthatmaybecommitted,therebyallowingthe criminalorganizationtooperatewithimpunity,andenhancingthefearsomenessofitsreputation amongrivalgangsorcriminalorganizations. Explicitthreats Evenifnophysicalviolenceisused,explicitthreatsmayeffectivelysilenceawitness.Adefendant mayspelloutforthevictimorwitnessexactlywhatconsequencesareinstoreifheorshereports thecrimetothepoliceorcooperatesinanyotherway.Ingang‐ororganized‐crime‐dominated neighborhoods,themerethreatmaybesufficienttoputthewitnessinfear–fearnotonlyofthe perpetrator,butalsooftheperpetrator’scriminalassociatesandeventhewitness’sownfriends, neighbors,orfamilymembers,whomayalsopressurethewitnessnottogetinvolved.The“Stop Snitching”motifpopularizedoverthepastfewyearsinhip‐hopmusic,graffiti,andfashioncarries theclearmessagethatinformantsandwitnessescooperatewithlawenforcementattheirownrisk andthatthatcooperationissociallyunacceptable. Thethreatneednotbeonetocommitanactofviolence;threatstodiscloseembarrassingfactsor liesaboutthevictim;threatstoreportcriminalactivity(realorfabricated);andimmigration‐ relatedthreats(“Ifyouleaveme,youwillbedeported”)maybeeffective.Inthefamilysetting, abusersmaythreatentotakeawaythecustodyofchildrenortousetheirsuperiorfinancialand legalresourcestoleavethevictiminfinancialstraits.Ifthefamilyisnolongertogether,theabuser maythreatentoreportthevictimtochildwelfareauthorities.Victimsofelderabusemaybe threatenedwithphysicalorfinancialabandonment. Moderntechnologymakesitpossibletocommunicatethreatsusingblogs,socialmedia(e.g., Facebook,Twitter),textmessages,email,andvoicemail.Thesourceofthesecommunicationsmay beconcealedwithtechnology,atechniquecalled“spoofing,”requiringpropercomputerforensic evidence‐gatheringtechniquestoconnectthecommunicationstothedefendant. Inadditiontomakingthreatsagainstthewitnesspersonally,adefendantorathirdpartyactingon theirbehalfmaydirectthreatsagainstthewitness’sfamilyandlovedones,includingchildrenand pets.Victimsandwitnesseswhoareimmigrantsmaybethreatenedwithreprisalsagainstfamily membersindistantcountries,particularlyingang‐relatedorhumantraffickingcases,wherethe defendantsmayhaveassociatesorinfluencewithgovernmentofficialsinthosecountries. Implicitthreatsandmenacingconduct Nonverbalcommunicationwithoutanexplicitthreatisanothereffectiveformofintimidation. Readilyunderstoodthreatsincludegestures,suchasmakingaslashingmotionacrossthethroat, mimickingthefiringofagun,ormimingthesnappingofthewitness’sphotographwhileinthe courthousetotestify.Incasesinvolvingdomesticviolence,humantrafficking,organg‐related violenceagainstavictimwhoisassociatedwiththegang,theremaybeahistoryofviolenceagainst 5 Æ Æ Æ Æ IMPROVING WITNESS SAFETY AND PREVENTING WITNESS INTIMIDATION IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM: BENCHMARKS FOR PROGRESS thevictimsuchthata“code”wordorphrase,anoutwardlyambiguousgesture,orafacial expressionassociatedwithpreviousassaultsissufficienttocommunicatethethreat.Somethreats aresymbolic(e.g.,adozenyellowrosesdeliveredtoavictimwhohasbeentoldthatthedayshe receivesadozenyellowrosesisthedayshewilldie).Cross‐burningshavebeenusedforyearsas symbolicthreatsagainstAfricanAmericanvictimsinpartsoftheSouth,andorganizedcrimeor gangmembersmaydeliversymbolicthreatsintheformofdeadanimalsorutilizesomeother objectorsign,suchasgraffiti,thatthevictimwillrecognizeasathreat. Othermenacingconduct,suchasstalkingbehavior,isoftenusedtointimidatevictims.Such conductcommunicatestothevictimorwitnessthatheorsheisbeingwatchedbytheperpetrator, anddiscouragescontinuedcooperationwithinvestigatorsorprosecutors.Awitnessmayreceive repeatedhang‐upcallsorcallsplayingmusicorwithstrangesounds.Gangmembersmayfillthe courtroomwhileawitnessisonthestand,andtheirvisiblepresencemayfrightenthewitnessinto silence.Vandalismandpropertydamage,includinggraffiti,windowbreaking,orshootinggunfire atawitness’shomeorcarsendsaclearmessage. Emotionalmanipulation Finally,moresubtleformsofpressure,someofwhichmaynotfaciallyappeartobeintimidation, canbeusedtomanipulatevictimsinanefforttodissuadethemfromcooperatingwithlaw enforcement.Abusivepartnersinintimaterelationshipshaveanadvantagethatmanydefendants donot—theyknowpreciselywhattheirvictims’emotionalvulnerabilitiesare.Victimsofintimate partnerviolencemaybetherecipientsoftearfulapologies,declarationsoflove,assurancesthatthe abuserwillchangeifonlythevictimwillbeforgiving,promisestoquitdrinkingorusingdrugs, promisestomarryortoattendcounselingsessions.Thesearecommontacticsthatplayuponthe victim’sdesperatewishnottobeinthepositionofbeingresponsibleforthecriminalconvictionof someonetheyonceloved,andforwhomtheymaystillcaredeeply,someonewithwhomtheymay havechildren.Thedefendantmayconvincethevictimthatiftheysimplymakethecasegoaway, thedefendantwillfinallychange,havingreceivedanimportant“wakeupcall.” Thiskindofemotionalpressuremaycomenotonlyfromtheabuser,butalsofromfamilymembers ofbothparties,particularlywhen,assooftenhappens,theabusehasbeenhiddenfromothers. Abusersareoftenveryskilledatpresentingacalm,reasonable,andlovingappearancearound familyandfriends,andarefrequentlyadeptatgainingtheirsympathyandsupportattheexpense ofthevictim,whoisoftenintentionallyisolatedfrompotentialsourcesofsupport.Insuchcasesit ispossiblethattheindividualsexertingthepressuremaybeunawarethattheyareadvancingthe abuser’sschemetosilencethevictim. Childrenareparticularlyvulnerabletoemotionalmanipulation.Witnessingabuseandbeing subjectedtomanipulationbyabusersharmschildren.Childrenofanabusiverelationshipmaybe co‐optedbytheabuser,whowillblamethevictimfortheirarrestandincarcerationandwill encouragethechildrentopressurethevictimtodropthecharges.Sometimesboyswillemulate theirfathers’treatmentoftheirmothersandbecomesurrogateabusersintheirfathers’absence. Thechildrenthusareplacedsquarelyinthemiddle:theyarebothmanipulatedbytheabuserand usedasameanstomanipulatetheirmother,thedomesticviolencevictim. Incasesinvolvingchildsexualassaultbyaparentorotherrelative,thenon‐abusingparentorother relativesmaybeindenialthattheabusecouldhaveoccurred,andmaythreatenthechild’ssecurity byblamingthechildforbreakingupthefamily.Thechildmaybethreatenedwithplacementin fostercareoragrouphome,ormaybeblamedforprovokingtheabuse.Thechildmayultimately Æ Æ Æ Æ 6 IMPROVING WITNESS SAFETY AND PREVENTING WITNESS INTIMIDATION IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM: BENCHMARKS FOR PROGRESS recantthereportofabuseor“forget”whathappenedtoregainhisorhersenseofsecurity. Childrenmayalsobebribedwithpromisesorgiftstochangetheirtestimony. Intimidationpromotedbyunethicaldefensecounsel Inadditiontofamily,friends,andcriminalassociates,somedefendantshaveanotherpotential sourceofthird‐partyintimidation:theirownlegaldefenseteam.Ethicaldefenseattorneys routinelyabidebycourtrulesandorders,andrefrainfromharassingandintimidatingconduct. However,someattorneysareheedlesslyoverzealousorfailtocontroltheirinvestigativeteam, conductingthedefenseinwaysthatsupportthedefendant’sintentiontopreventthevictimor witnessfromtestifying.Inappropriatetacticsmaycausethatvictimtoceaseallcooperationwith theproceedingsoreventogointohidingtoavoidtheintrusivenessofthedefenseinvestigation. Examplesinclude:repeatedlyharassingthevictimforaninterview(whenthedesirenottospeak withtheattorneyorinvestigatorhasbeenclearlycommunicated),invadingtheprivacyofavictim byseekingpersonalorconfidentialinformationthathasnopossiblerelevancetotheproceedings, orseekingunwarrantedpsychiatricorphysicalexaminationsofthevictim.Unethicaldefense attorneysmayalsosharewiththeirclientspersonalinformationaboutavictimorwitnessobtained indiscoverythathasbeenrestrictedtotheattorneyonlybyvirtueofaprotectiveorder. WHOISVULNERABLETOINTIMIDATION? Althoughavictimorwitnesscanbeintimidatedinalmostanykindofcriminalcase,certain categoriesofvictimsandwitnessesaremorelikelytobesubjectedtointimidationattempts.When therearemultiplevulnerabilityfactors(e.g.,avictimofdomesticviolencewhoisalsoarecent immigrant),theopportunitiesforintimidation,andthekindsofthreatstowhichtheymaybe subjected,increaseaccordingly. Victimsofdomesticviolence Victimsofdomesticviolencearealmostalwayssubjectedtosomeformofintimidationor manipulationduringthecourseofcriminalproceedings,asaretheirchildren.Oftenotherscloseto thevictim,suchasfamiliesandfriends,aresubjectedtoeffortsbytheabusertodiscouragethem fromcooperatingwiththeinvestigationorfromprovidingemotionalormaterialsupporttothe victim. Witnessestoorganized‐crime‐organg‐relatedviolence Witnessestoviolenceperpetratedbyacriminalorganizationarefrequentlysubjectedto intimidationtacticsinconnectionwiththeirhavingprovidedinformationorcooperationtolaw enforcement.Moreover,criminalorganizationssuchasgangsarelikelytoperpetuatean atmosphereoffearandintimidationintheneighborhoodswheretheyoperate.Thiskindof community‐wideintimidationcontributestothe“nosnitching”credothatfrustratestheabilityof lawenforcementtoeffectivelyinvestigateandprosecutesuchcrimes. Humantraffickingvictims Humantraffickingvictimsinforcedsexand/orforcedlabormarketsare,likedomesticviolence victims,subjectedtointimidationandthreatsonanongoingbasis,aspartofthetrafficker’sscheme toensnarethemandthentokeepthemenslaved.Thelevelofintimidationonlyincreaseswiththe prospectofavictim’scooperationwithaninvestigationofthetrafficker.Thesevictimsoftenshare characteristicswithothervulnerablegroups,aswhenthevictimisalsoinvolvedinanintimate relationshipwiththetraffickerorwhenthevictimisanimmigrant,potentiallysubjectto deportationorwhosefamilymembersinhisorherhomecountrymaybethreatenedwithharm. 7 Æ Æ Æ Æ IMPROVING WITNESS SAFETY AND PREVENTING WITNESS INTIMIDATION IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM: BENCHMARKS FOR PROGRESS Immigrants Victimswhoareimmigrants,particularlythosewhohaveonlyrecentlyarrivedinthiscountry,may besubjectedtothreatsofdeportation.Incasesinvolvinggangswithapresenceinthevictim’s homecountry,orhumantraffickerswithcontactsandinfluenceinthevictim’shomecountry,the victimmaybethreatenedwithharmtofamilymemberswhoremaininthatcountry.The vulnerabilityofimmigrantvictimsincreaseswhentherearebarriersoflanguageandofculturethat preventthemfromseekingsupportservicesorfromunderstanding,ortrusting,lawenforcement andthecriminaljusticeprocess. Childandjuvenilevictimsandwitnesses Childvictimsandwitnessesareparticularlyvulnerabletothreatsandemotionalmanipulation. Becauseoftheirdependenceontheadultsintheirlives,includingtheabuserincasesoffamily violenceandsexualabuse,childrenmayallywiththeabuserfortheirownphysicalandemotional safety.Childvictimsofhumantraffickingareisolatedfromresponsibleadults,suchasteachersand health‐careproviders,whomightotherwiseassistthem. Juvenilevictimsof,orwitnessesto,gangviolenceareoftenmembersofgangs,themselves—either membersofthesamegangasthedefendant(s),ormembersofarivalgang.Assuch,theyare subjectedtoanevenhigherdegreeofpressure,threats,andretaliationthanvictimsorwitnesses whohavenoconnectiontogangactivity.Juvenilegangmembers,moreover,arelikelytohavelittle supportfromparentsorcontactwithtrustworthyadultssuchasteachersorcounselors.Juvenile witnessestogangviolencepresentuniquewitnessmanagementproblems,sincetheirsocialand emotionaltiestothegangmaybesostrongthattheyresisteffortsbylawenforcementtoprotect themduringandafterthecriminalinvestigation.Mostlawenforcementagenciesarepresentlyill‐ equippedtoprovidetheservicesthattheseyoungwitnessesneedfortheirongoingsafety. Victimsandwitnessesininstitutionalsettings Victimsofabuseorviolenceoccurringininstitutionalsettings,suchasschools,prisons,hospitals, orgrouphomesareparticularlyvulnerabletointimidation,regardlessofwhethertheassailantisa staffmemberoranotherstudent,inmate,patient,orresident.Wheretheabuserisastaffmember, thatindividualtypicallyhastremendouspoweroverthelifeandwell‐beingofthevictim.Evenif theabuserisremovedfromtheinstitution,heorshemayhavefriendswhoareinapositionto intimidateortoretaliateagainstthevictimfordisclosingtheabuse.Whentheassailantisanother student,inmate,patient,orresident,thatdefendantalsomayhaveallieswhoareableandwillingto intimidatethevictimoranywitnesscourageousenoughtospeakout.Incorrectionalinstitutions, theinstitutionitselfmayeffectively“punish”thevictimorwitnessbyplacinghimorherinisolation fromothersforthewitness’sownprotection.Suchsegregationmayresultinthelossofprivileges enjoyedbyindividualsingeneralpopulation,andmayevenbackfirebyhighlightingthefactthat thewitnessiscooperating. Incarceratedwitnessestocrimescommittedoutsidetheinstitutionoftenfacerisksfromthe defendantagainstwhomtheyarecooperatingandfromthedefendant’sincarceratedassociates. Eventransferstootherinstitutionsmaynotassurethesafetyofsuchwitnesseswheretheprison grapevinecanrapidlycommunicateinformationbetweeninstitutionsaboutwhoiscooperating againstwhom.Suchwitnessesaresometimesdirectlythreatenedwhiletheyarebeingtransported forcourtappearancesorplacedinholdingfacilitieswhilewaitingtotestify. Toeffectivelyaddresstheproblemofvictimandwitnessintimidationrequiresthecollaborationof police,prosecutors,investigators,judges,andadvocates,aswellashealthcare,socialservices,and correctionsprofessionals,allofwhommaycomeintocontactwithvictimsorwitnesseswhoare Æ Æ Æ Æ 8 IMPROVING WITNESS SAFETY AND PREVENTING WITNESS INTIMIDATION IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM: BENCHMARKS FOR PROGRESS vulnerabletointimidationorwithdefendantswhointimidate.Thosestakeholdersneedto understandwhenandhowintimidationismostlikelytooccur,inordertopreventitsoccurrence, topromptlyandeffectivelyaddressitwhenitoccurs,andtosuccessfullyprosecutecasesinspiteof defendants’effortstopreventwitnessesfromcooperating. CONCLUSION Knowledgeaboutthekindsofcasesinwhichvictimandwitnessintimidationismostlikelytooccur, andthemeansbywhichitcanbecarriedout,willenablepolice,prosecutors,andallied professionalstocoordinatetheireffortstopreventitsoccurrence,topromptlyandeffectively addressitwhenitoccurs,andtosuccessfullyprosecutecasesinspiteofdefendants’effortsto preventwitnessesfromcooperating.Defendantsengageinwitnessintimidationbecauseitworks. Totheextentthatthecriminaljusticesystemcanmakeintimidationalosingpropositionfor defendants,victimsandwitnesseswillbesaferandmorewillbewillingtocomeforwardand cooperatetoensurepublicsafety. 9 Æ Æ Æ Æ IMPROVING WITNESS SAFETY AND PREVENTING WITNESS INTIMIDATION IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM: BENCHMARKS FOR PROGRESS PartII.IdentifyingSolutions:IntegratingVictimandWitness SafetyIntoCriminalJusticeSystems Victimandwitnessintimidationchallengesthefoundationofthejusticesystem,whichisbuiltonits capacitytorenderjusticeandensurepublicsafety.Acriticalfunctionofthejusticesystemisto ensurethatindividualscaneasilyreportcrimesandfeelsafeparticipatinginprosecutionswithout fearofretaliation.Unfortunately,therealityisthatsomejusticesystemprocessesfailto comprehensivelyprotectvictimsandwitnessesfromintimidation.ThispartoftheResourcewill guidepractitionersnotonlyindefiningthescopeofvictimandwitnessintimidationintheir jurisdictionsbutalsoinreviewinghowtheirsystemsmightbetterpromotesafety.Itisdividedinto threesections.Thefirstsection,Frameworkforchartingprogressinensuringsafety,describesa modelfordefiningtheactualincidenceofintimidationsoastogaugeprogressovertime.The secondsection,Commonsafetyvulnerabilitiesinjusticesystems,chartsthecommonpitfallsand vulnerabilitiesinthejusticesystemrelativetovictimandwitnesssafety.Finallythethirdsection, Bestpracticeprinciplesforsystemicsafetyresponses,describesbestpracticesforjusticesystemsto useasaguidefordevelopingsystemicresponsestointimidation. FRAMEWORKFORCHARTINGPROGRESSINENSURINGSAFETY Beforecreatingasystemicresponsetointimidation,itisimportanttoconsiderwhatyouwantto achieve,andhowtomeasureprogresstowardthatoutcome.However,whatiftheunderlying problemisonethatisimpossibletomeasure?Theproblemofvictimandwitnessintimidationmay infactbeimmeasurable.Byitsnature,intimidationisdifficulttoidentifyunlessitisunsuccessfulor onlypartiallysuccessful.Thereisnorealwaytodeterminehowoftenintimidationsucceedsin preventingcrimereportingorcooperationwiththeprosecution.Withoutaclearmeasureofthe incidenceofintimidationinacommunity,howcananyjurisdictiontrulydeterminewhetherits responsesareeffectiveindecreasingintimidationandenhancingsafety?Practitionersandexperts inthefieldarereducedtolamentingtheunknownprevalenceandchallengesofintimidation, whetherindomesticviolence,gang,orotherviolentcrimescases,withoutasenseofdirectionin whichtoproceedtoeffectivelyreduceitsoccurrence. Ultimately,practitionersshouldstrivetodecreaseandeliminatetheoccurrenceofintimidation. Withoutknowingexactlyhowoftenintimidationoccurs,therearetwofactorsthatcanbeusedto quantifythetrueprevalenceofintimidation. Thefirstisdocumentedincidenceofwitness intimidation.7Expertsagreethatthisnumberissignificantlylowerthantheactualincidenceof intimidation,butitdoesprovideatleastsomemeasureofhowwellthecriminaljusticesystemis respondingwhenintimidationisidentified.Thesecondisthenumberofopportunitiesfor intimidation.Thenumberofpotentialinstancesofintimidationwillfarexceedthereality,because itisunlikelythatdefendantsorotherpotentialintimidatorstakeadvantageofallopportunitiesfor intimidation. Thesetwomeasures–documentedincidenceofwitnessintimidationandopportunitiesfor intimidation–formtwoconcentriccircles,theformerembeddedwithinthelatter.Asshowninthe diagrambelow,theactualincidenceofwitnessintimidationliesbetweenthesetwocircles. Æ 7Commonchargesincludewitnessintimidation,tamperingwithawitness,solicitationofperjury,etc.Formore informationseetheAEquitasstatutorycompilation“WitnessIntimidation,”availableuponrequest. Æ Æ Æ 10 IMPROVING WITNESS SAFETY AND PREVENTING WITNESS INTIMIDATION IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM: BENCHMARKS FOR PROGRESS Figure1.ConceptualModelofPrevalenceofIntimidation Opportunitiesfor intimidation Actualincidenceofwitness intimidation Documentedincidenceof witnessintimidation Bringingallthreecirclesintoalignmentwitheachotherapplies systemicpressuretodecreasetheactualincidenceofwitnessintimidation. Theimplicationsherearesignificant.Criminaljusticeagenciesshouldworkcollaborativelyto increasetheidentificationandprosecutionofintimidation(makethesmallestcirclebigger),while alsoclosinggapsoropportunitiesforintimidation(makethelargestcirclesmaller).Thiswillbring themclosertoeliminatingincidentsofintimidationaltogether.Moreover,jurisdictionscan measuretheirprogressfrombothendstoseeincreasesinprosecutionsandconvictionsovertime andtoassessthedegreetowhichknownvulnerabilitiesintheirsystemarebeingreducedor eliminated. Thisframeworkcanbeacriticaltoolforcriminaljusticeleaderstodesign,implement,andevaluate theirsystemicresponsestointimidationandsubsequentlygaugetheeffectivenessofvictimand witnesssafetyefforts.Beforediscussingwhatthosesystemicresponsesshouldincorporate, identifyingthespecificopportunitiesforintimidationmeritsdiscussion. COMMONSAFETYVULNERABILITIESINCRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEMS Thejusticesystemstrivestoensurethatcasesproceedefficientlythroughitwhileprioritizingthe protectionofdefendants’dueprocessrights.Nonetheless,therearesignificantgapsinvictimand witnesssafety,leadingtoopportunitiesforintimidation.Overthelasttwodecades,however, increasedattentiontoriskassessment,victimsafety,victims’rights,offenderaccountabilityand systemaccountabilityhasledjusticesystemprofessionalstobeginfocusingonhow,when,and whereintimidationoccurs.TheworkofAEquitasontheIWIinitiativeidentifiedcommongapsin preventingandrespondingtointimidation,whichareaddressedbelow. Intimidationcanputpressureonvictimsandwitnessestobeuncooperativewithlawenforcement andprosecutorsafteracrimeisreported.Itcanalsopreventthoseindividualsfromcoming forwardtoreportacrimeatall,whichmayrepresentthemostsignificantareaofunaddressed intimidationinmanycommunities.“Communities”arenotlimitedtothosedefinedbygeographical bounds.Theymayinclude,forexample,collegecampuseswheresexualassaultamongstudents presentsasignificantchallengeasvictimandperpetratormayhavetocontinuetoworkandstudy 11 Æ Æ Æ Æ IMPROVING WITNESS SAFETY AND PREVENTING WITNESS INTIMIDATION IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM: BENCHMARKS FOR PROGRESS incloseproximity.Theymayalsoincludemilitarybases,churchcommunities,orcivic organizations.Theincreasinguseofsocialmediameansthattheintimidators’reachiseven broader,resultingincontactsthataremorefrequent,notboundbylocation,andmoredamaging. Whenvictimsandwitnessesdocomeforward,theyareoftenrequiredtoappearatcourtatthe sametimeasthedefendant.Evenwhenno‐contactordersareinplace,thiscloseproximitypresents safetychallenges.Toensuresafety,justicesystemprofessionalsshouldthinkcreativelyabouthow torespondtointimidationinsideandoutsideofcourthouses. Figure2belowmapsthecommonopportunitiesforintimidationthroughoutthelifeofacriminal case,fromthecommissionofacrimethroughcompletionoftheoffender’ssentence,whetherin custodyorundercommunitysupervision.Localleadershipcanusethismaptoanalyzetheir ownsystemsandtoidentifywheretheyhavebeenabletoclosegapsandwherevulnerabilities persist.8Figure2dividesthecriminaljusticeprocessintokeystagesorcomponents: Incidentoccurs Incidentreportedtopolice Policeinitialresponse Policecomponent Arrest Jailholdawaitingfirstappearance Firstappearance/arraignment Pretrialproceedings Trial Sentencing Supervision/corrections UntrackedpatternsofintimidatingbehaviorrepresentamajorgapandarerepresentedinFigure2 asspanningthestagesoftheprocess.Perpetratorsmakeaseriesofthreats–implicitandexplicit– overtime.Inveryseriouscases,thesethreatsescalateandculminateinphysicalharm,including death.Unfortunately,patternsofintimidatingbehaviorarenottrackedacrossthecriminaljustice system.Infact,thebehaviormayescapeattentionwithinasinglestage(e.g.,policefailingto recognizeintimidationonthesceneatthetimeoftheirresponse).Evenwhensuchconductis recognized,thatinformationisoftennotsharedwithothersystemactors,suchasprosecutorsand victimadvocates,unlessthevictimtakesonthatresponsibility.Withoutthatflowofinformation, thoseinteractingwithvictimsandwitnessesdonothaveanaccuratepictureofthesafetyofthese individualsandareunabletorespondappropriatelytotheintimidation. 8ThemethodologyforsuchanassessmentinvolvesmanyofthesameactivitiesthathavecharacterizedSafetyand AccountabilityAuditsofresponsestodomesticviolence:observationsofpractitioners;interviewsorfocusgroupswith victims/witnesses;andanalysisofcasereportsandfiles.SeePartIIIforfurtherdiscussionaboutsuchamethodology. FormoreinformationaboutSafetyandAccountabilityAudits,pleasevisitPraxisInternationalat http://www.praxisinternational.org/ Æ Æ Æ Æ 12 IMPROVING WITNESS SAFETY AND PREVENTING WITNESS INTIMIDATION IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM: BENCHMARKS FOR PROGRESS Figure2.MapofCommonOpportunitiesforIntimidationandGapsinVictimandWitnessSafety 13 Æ Æ Æ Æ IMPROVING WITNESS SAFETY AND PREVENTING WITNESS INTIMIDATION IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM: BENCHMARKS FOR PROGRESS BESTPRACTICEPRINCIPLESFORSYSTEMICCRIMINALJUSTICESAFETYRESPONSES TheMapofCommonOpportunities,Figure2,pointstospecifictargetsinthecriminaljusticeprocess thatneedtobeaddressedtoenhancesafetyforvictimsandwitnessesservedbythatsystem.The approachpresentedhereforunderstandingandrespondingtotheprevalenceofvictimandwitness intimidationdoesnotrequirestartingfromscratch.Localandfederaljurisdictionsand internationalcourtsworkingtoenhancevictim/witnesssafetyhavedevelopedeffectivewaysof addressingsystemicvulnerabilities.Table1belowcombinesthemintoasetofbestpractice principlesthataddressthesevulnerabilitieswhenrespondingtointimidation. Jurisdictionslookingtoimplementtheseprinciplesmustbeginwithapubliccommitmenttosafety andaggressiveprosecutionofcriminalintimidation.Thiscommitmentinvolvesallkeysystem actorscomingtogethertoplanacoordinatedandcomprehensiveapproach–theonlyapproach thatcanrealisticallyaddressasafetyproblemaspervasiveasintimidation.Thiswillprovidea foundationfromwhichitispossibletobuildaneffectivesystemicresponsetointimidation, monitoroutcomes,ensuredesiredoutcomesareachieved,andallowforstrategiestoberefinedand enhancedovertime. Ofcourse,communitieswillhavedifferentstrengthsandneeds,sonoonesetofbestpractice principlescanbeapplieduniversallytoalljurisdictions.Everycommunitywill–andshould–look alittledifferentbutallcanbeinformedbytheprinciplessetforthinTable1.Theseprinciples provideaguideforplanningresponsesandforcreatingbenchmarkstomeasuresuccess. Table1.TenPrinciplesforEffectiveCriminalJusticeSystemSafetyResponses 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Æ Æ Æ Planandimplementahighly‐visiblecoordinated justicesystemresponse tovictimandwitness intimidationthatspansthetimefrominitialreportofacrimethroughpost‐releasesupervisionofthe offender. Usecommunity‐basedapproachestobuildtrustwith neighborhoodresidentsandtoencourage reportingofinformationaboutcriminalincidentsincludingintimidation. Educatevictimsandwitnessesaboutwitnessintimidation. Equipcriminaljusticeleadershipandstaffwithanoperationalknowledgeofintimidationandsafety. Maintainconsistentteamofcriminaljusticeactorsthatworkwithvictimsandwitnessestobuild trustandrespondholisticallytotheirneeds. Useobjectiveassessmentsandinputfromvictimsandwitnessestodetermineriskofand vulnerabilitytointimidation.Usethoseassessmentsandinputtoinformwitnesssafetyefforts. Createinformation‐sharingpoliciesthatlink justicesystemactors andallowthemtoidentifypatterns ofbehaviorandpossibleintimidationinindividualcases. Makeallreasonableeffortstominimizecontactbetweenvictims/witnessesanddefendants throughoutthejusticesystemprocess. Createsafespacesincourthouses. 10 Tracktheprogressandoutcomesofeffortsandusethatinformationtoinformsystemimprovement. Æ 14 IMPROVING WITNESS SAFETY AND PREVENTING WITNESS INTIMIDATION IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM: BENCHMARKS FOR PROGRESS PracticePrinciple1.Planandimplementahighly‐visiblecoordinatedjusticesystemresponseto victimandwitnessintimidationthatspansthetimefrominitialreportofacrimethroughpost‐release supervisionoftheoffender. Theplanning,implementation,andmonitoringofwitnesssafetyprogramsrequireseffort andinvestmentfromtheentirecriminaljusticesystemandthebroadercommunity. Necessarypartnersinclude911,lawenforcement,jail,pretrialservices,prosecution,victim services,courtsecurity,judiciary,courtadministration,probation,offenderprograms, corrections,parole,community‐basedvictimadvocacy,civillegalservices,medical community,etc.9Ateamofrepresentativesoftheseagenciescanmakepolicythatlooks thoughtfullyattheevidenceofintimidationandrespondssystemically.Thisteam’sgoalis toensurevictim/witnesssafetythroughouttheentirecriminaljusticeprocessfrominitial reportingthroughpost‐releasesupervision,includingwhileoffendersareonreleasestatus inthecommunity(e.g.,duringperiodsofprobationandpost‐releasefromincarceration). Effectivesystemchangerequiresmorethantheassemblyofmulti‐disciplinaryteams;other keyaspectsoftheseteamsarecoordinationandaccountability.Successfulteamsincludea coordinatororfacilitatorwhopusheseffortsforward,andmemberswhoareaccountableto oneanother,accordingtoaplan.Theworkoftheteamaddressesthesystem’spreventionof andresponsetointimidationaswellashowthesystemrespondstotheneedsofvictims andwitnesses,protectsvictimsandwitnesses,andprovidesreferralsforservices. Examplesofpreventiveeffortsaremonitoringcourthousespacesandmaintaining confidentialityofwitnessesduringinvestigation.Examplesofresponsestrategiesinclude monitoringcommunicationstoandfromjails,enforcementofprotectiveorders,specialized patrolofhomesandworkplacesofhigh‐riskvictimsandwitnesses,electronicmonitoringof defendants,andrelocationofvictimsandwitnesses.10Thereareavarietyofoptionsthat canbecustomizedtotherisklevelandneedsofindividualvictimsandwitnesses. 9 WhilepreviousexperiencewithCCRsgivespausetotheinclusionofdefensecounsel,jurisdictionsimplementing themodelpresentedhereshouldconsiderafullyrepresentativeteamthatincludesdefense.Whereappropriate—and withconsiderationoftheirethicalresponsibilitiestotheirclients—defensecounselcanprovideimportantinsightinto howthejusticesystemcanensurethesafetyofvictimsandwitnesseswithoutcompromisingthedueprocessrightsof defendants.Afterall,notalldefendantsareintimidatorsandsomevictimsandwitnessesmayevenbedefendantsin anothercase.Giventheopportunitytobeinvolved,defensecounsel—alongwithotherjusticesystemactors—may learnhowtheiractionscouldinadvertentlyfacilitateintimidationandwhattheycandotoclosegapsinwitnesssafety. GiventheongoingadvancesmadebyCriminalJusticeCoordinatingCouncils(CJCCs),thereisreasontobelieve thatabroad‐basedpolicyworkgroupthatincludesjudges,prosecutors,defensecounsel,lawenforcementofficers, correctionsofficers,probationofficers,andvictimadvocateswouldsucceed.CJCCshavegainedpopularitythroughoutthe countryandhavebeeninstrumentalineffortsliketheEvidence‐BasedDecision‐MakingInitiativefromtheNational InstituteofCorrectionsateffectingsustainablesystemsreform.Numerousorganizations,includingJMI,havesupported andworkedalongsidethesecollaborativeworkgroupstorevampscreeningandassessmentpractices,sentencing processes,andservicesavailabletocourt‐involvedindividuals.SeealsoJenniferTrone,LoriCrowder&ChandraYoder, VeraInstituteofJustice,JusticeandSafetyforAll:PromotingDialogueBetweenPublicDefendersandVictimAdvocates (2002),www.vera.org/sites/defaul/files/resources/downloads/Justice_and_safety.pdf(“InNovember2001,agroupof 25publicdefendersandvictimadvocatesfromaroundtheUnitedStatesgatheredinChicago.Perhapsforthefirsttime, membersofthetwoprofessionstalkedopenlyabouthowtheyvieweachotherandtheirownwork.”Thisexperience showedthataninclusiveteamofadversepartiescancometogethertodispelmythsandfindabalancebetweena defendant’szealousrepresentationandvictimsafety.) 10Changesincourtroom,courthouse,orjailvisitationproceduresthatmayimpacttheinterestsofdefensecounselin providingeffectiverepresentationtotheirclientsshouldbeimplementedafteranoticeandcommentperiod,with appropriateconsiderationgiventothoseinterests. 15 Æ Æ Æ Æ IMPROVING WITNESS SAFETY AND PREVENTING WITNESS INTIMIDATION IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM: BENCHMARKS FOR PROGRESS Theseresponsesshouldrepresentacontinuumofprotectivestrategiesorasafetynetfor victimsandwitnesses,andneedtobehighlyvisible,communicatingaclearandunwavering commitmenttosafety.Anysystemresponseshouldalsoincludeapublicawareness campaignaswellaseffortstomaximizetherelationshipbetweencriminaljusticeactors andthecommunity.Itisimportantthatthecommunityismadeawareoftheseeffortssoas tocommunicatetovictimsandwitnessesthatthejusticesystemtakestheirsafetyandother needsseriouslyandwilladvocateforthem.Thiscommitmentalsowarnswould‐be perpetratorsthattheywillbepursuedandprosecutedforintimidation. PracticePrinciple2.Usecommunity‐basedapproachestobuildtrustwithneighborhoodresidentsand toencouragereportingofinformationaboutcriminalincidentsincludingintimidation. Oneofthelargestobstaclestocrimereportingandpreventionisthefearofperpetrators anddistrustofthejusticesystemthatpervadesmanycommunities.Often,thereisafearof retributionforreportingtoorcooperatingwithpolice(e.g.,“snitchesgetstitches”). Furthermore,someneighborhoodshavewidespreadanimosityorhostilitybetween residentsandjusticesystemactors,suchaslawenforcement.Bridgingthegapbetweenthe justicesystemandthecommunitiesitserveshasproventoadvancetheinterestsofvictims andwitnesses,thecriminaljusticesystem,andthecommunityasawhole.Someindicators ofaneffectivewitnesssafetyprograminclude: Communitypolicingandprosecution Continualoutreachtoparents,guardians,andotheradultswhoareoftenfirst informedaboutyouthgangviolenceandintimidation Easilyaccessibleconfidentialchannelsforreportingcrimeorinformationabout crimes Languageandculturalskillsamonglawenforcementappropriatelymatchedtothe communitiesserved Ongoingcommunityeducationandcommunityorganizationeffortsthatbring togethermembersofthecommunitywithrepresentativesoflawenforcement. Communitypolicingandprosecutionprinciplesarecentralhere.Focusingonpositive interactionswithcommunitymembers,openinguplinesofmeaningfulcommunicationwith residents,partneringwithresidentsandlocalorganizations,andmakingcriminaljustice worktransparentandopentoresidentsareallprovenmethodsforbuildingtrust. PracticePrinciple3.Educatevictimsandwitnessesaboutwitnessintimidation. Victimsandwitnesseswhoareeducatedaboutintimidationwillbemorepreparedtoavoid orrespondtoitfromthestart.Offenderswillattempttoexploittheirfear,reluctanceor embarrassmentorattempttocontrolthembyinstillingguiltorexploitingfeelingsof loyalty.Oneofthemosteffectivestrategiesforfacilitatingtheidentification,prevention, andprosecutionofintimidationistoprovideinformationtovulnerablevictimsand witnessesaboutwhatintimidationcanlooklikeandwhenitmighthappen.Educatingand empoweringvictimsandwitnessesismorethanaone‐timeevent.Justicesystemactors shouldhaveregulardialogueswithvictimsandwitnessesaboutsafetyandwithpartnersto removeormitigateobstaclestosafety.Whenstrategizingaboutreportingintimidationand accessingavailableservices,itisimportanttoprovideoptionsandsupportbutequally importanttoconsiderthevictim’sorwitness’swishesandconcernsindecidingthebest waytoproceed. Æ Æ Æ Æ 16 IMPROVING WITNESS SAFETY AND PREVENTING WITNESS INTIMIDATION IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM: BENCHMARKS FOR PROGRESS Questionsthesedialoguescanaddressearlyandoftenare: Whatiswitnessintimidation?Whatformsdoesittake?Whatdoestheintimidator want? Whatisevidenceofwitnessintimidationandhowshouldevidencebepreserved? HowandtowhomshouldIreportwitnessintimidation? HowcanIprotectmyselffromintimidation? Whatresourcesareavailabletomeforhelp,advice,counseling,etc.? Howdoesthecriminaljusticesystemwork?WhatcanIexpect? PracticePrinciple4.Equipcriminaljusticeleadershipandstaffwithanoperationalknowledgeof intimidationandsafety. Anoperationalknowledgeofvictimandwitnessintimidationmeansthatcriminaljustice leadersandpractitionersunderstandthedynamicsofwitnessintimidation–whatitlooks likeandhowtodocumentincidents–aswellaseffectiveresponses.Practitionersshould developoridentifyexistingstrategiesforcounselingvictimsandwitnesses,forconnecting themwithresponsiveandreliableservices,andforgatheringtheinformationnecessaryto takelegalactionwhenappropriate.Someindividualsmaynotseethemselvesasvictims, whileothersaredeeplydependentontheperpetrator’sincomeorprotection,orbecause thatpersonistheironlylifelineinthecommunityorinthecountry.Considerthecasesof immigrantsvictimizedinhumantraffickingcasesortheclosetedpartnerinanabusive same‐sexrelationshiportheyounggangmemberinagang‐dominatedneighborhood. Thesesituationsareallpotentialscenariosinwhichvictimorwitnessintimidationcan occurandrequiringacomprehensiveresponsefromlawenforcement,prosecutors,court security,judges,victimadvocates,andothers.Aworkingknowledgeofhowtoidentifyand respondtointimidation–tobothassistvictims/witnessesandtopursueprosecution– characterizeseffectivepreventioneffortsandsystemresponsetointimidationthatwill improvepublicsafety. Thefirsttoolforpractitionerstoassesstheirunderstandingandprogressindevelopinga responsetointimidationcanbefoundininAppendixC,RubrictoAssessOperational KnowledgeofVictimandWitnessSafetyAmongCriminalJusticePractitioners.Thistool, designedasarubric,11describesareasofknowledgethatpractitionersmusthaveinorder tobeeffectivepartnersinsafetyefforts.Eachareaofknowledgeisdescribedwithan accompanyingscaletomeasureunderstanding. PracticePrinciple5.Maintainconsistentteamofcriminaljusticeactorsthatworkswithvictimsand witnessestobuildtrustandrespondholisticallytotheirneeds. Trustbetweenvictimsandwitnessesandthecriminaljusticesystemiscriticaltothe effectiveadministrationofjustice.Bymaintainingconsistentstaff,(e.g.,police,prosecutors, 11Rubricshavegainedpopularityasusefultoolstoclearlycommunicatestandardsofpracticeandtoconcretelydescribe levelsofperformance.Theyarenormativeinthattheydefinetheexpectationsforeffectivepracticesforpromoting witnesssafety.Theyarealsoformativeinthattheyhelppractitionersandleadersbetterunderstandwhateffective practicelookslikeandgivethemthetoolstoaccuratelyassesstheirownperformance.TherubricinAppendixCis designedtobeusedwithindividualstafffromkeystakeholdergroups,suchas911operators,policeofficers,prosecutors, victimadvocates,courtsecurity,etc. 17 Æ Æ Æ Æ IMPROVING WITNESS SAFETY AND PREVENTING WITNESS INTIMIDATION IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM: BENCHMARKS FOR PROGRESS victimserviceproviders)teamsareabletoreportbetterresultsincludingthatvictimsand witnessesfeelsafer,intimidationisreportedmorereadily,andcooperationwith prosecutionismoreconsistent. Victimsandwitnessesoftenfindthemselveswithadiminishedornon‐existentsupport networkasaresultofcomingforwardtoreportacrimeorcooperatingwiththe prosecution.Theymayneedtemporaryhousingandincomesupport.Theymayalsoneed otherservicessuchashealthcareforphysicalinjuries,mentalhealthcounselingand treatment,andcrisisintervention.Victimsandwitnessesmayhavechildren,elderlyfamily members,orpetswhoarethreatenedandwhomaythereforealsorequireservices.As muchaspossible,victimsandwitnessesshouldbeinteractingwiththesameinvestigators, prosecutors,andadvocatesthroughouttheircases,ratherthanbeingshuffledthrougha successionofnewlyassignedstaff.12Regulartwo‐waycommunicationbuildstrustover time,asstaffcheckinaboutsafety,makeservicesavailableasneeded,andexplainthe adjudicationprocessandchangesincasestatus.Victimsandwitnessesbenefitfromtimely andaccuratecommunicationaboutmajorcaseevents,suchasreleasestatusandcourt proceedings.Thesecommunicationscanbecombinedwithongoingsafetyplanningwith victimsandwitnessessothattheyareactivelyengagedinsafetyeffortsinsteadoffeeling disempoweredandoverwhelmedbythem.Ensuringconsistentinteractionbetween victims/witnessesandwell‐trainedpractitionerscentraltoasuccessfulsystemresponseto intimidation. PracticePrinciple6.Usebothobjectiveassessmentsandinputfromvictimsandwitnessesto determineriskofandvulnerabilitytointimidation.Usetheassessmentsandinputtoinformwitness safetyefforts. Manyjurisdictionsarefacedwithlimitedresourcesandothersignificantchallengesto protectingvictimsandwitnesses.Nonetheless,somejurisdictionshavelearnedhowto allocateavailableresourcesinstrategicwaystocreatesystem‐widesafetymeasures.These strategiesincludemoretargetedinterventions,suchasincreasedpatrolsorrelocationin high‐needsituations.Assessmentofthreatstosafetyorriskofintimidationshouldbemade earlyandoften.Earlythreatassessmentisimportantbecausevictimsandwitnessesare potentiallyatriskassoonastheyreportacrime.Frequentreassessmentrecognizesthat riskisdynamicandcanincreaseordecreaseovertimeandasconditionschange. Manyjusticesystemactorsalreadyassessriskusingtheirprofessionaljudgment.While theirexperienceisinvaluable,researchhasconsistentlyshownthatprofessionaljudgment isfarmoreeffectivewhenpairedwithobjectiveassessmentsofrisk.Objectiveassessments helptoensurethoroughness,preventaprofessional’sindividualassumptionsfrom interfering,andallowforallstaff–regardlessofexperiencelevel–toprovidethenecessary protectiontoallvictimsandwitnesses.Theperceptionofthevictimorwitnessisanother criticalcomponentofriskassessment.Thevictim’sorwitness’spersonalperceptionofrisk 12Inofficeswhereverticalprosecutionisnotpossible,orwhereunavoidablestaffingchangesdemandthatacasebe transferredtoanewprosecutor,investigator,oradvocate,itisimportantforoutgoingstafftocarefullydocumentinthe casefileallinformationpertinenttothesafetyofvictimsandwitnesses,andtoreviewthisinformationwithnewly assignedstafftobesureitisunderstood.Wherepossible,apersonalintroductiontothenewstaffassuming responsibilityforthecasewillhelptoreassurethevictimorwitnessthatnewlyassignedstaffarecommittedto maintainingthesamehighlevelofattentiontosafetyneeds. Æ Æ Æ Æ 18 IMPROVING WITNESS SAFETY AND PREVENTING WITNESS INTIMIDATION IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM: BENCHMARKS FOR PROGRESS shouldbeweighedheavilyinconjunctionwiththeobjectiveassessmentandthe professional’sownjudgment. Threatassessmenttoolshavebeendevelopedandvalidatedforuseindomesticviolence cases—amongthemtheSpousalAssaultRiskAssessmentGuide(SARA),MOSAIC,the DangerAssessment,andtheOntarioDomesticAssaultRiskAssessment(ODARA).13 However,similarlyvalidatedtoolsspecificallydesignedtoassesstheriskofintimidationin othertypesofcaseshavenotyetbeendeveloped.14Investigatorsandprosecutorsoften conductinformalthreatassessmentingangcasesbaseduponknownriskfactors,suchas theproximityofrelationshipamongindividuals,theresidenceofwitnessesinagang‐ dominatedneighborhood,andprevioushistoryofviolenceamongtheperpetrators. Justicesystempractitionersshouldleveragethetoolsthatareavailable,experimentwith thesekindsofassessmentstoadaptthemtoinstancesofintimidation,andcontinueto monitoremergingresearchinthefield.Anintimidationassessmenttoolshouldincludea numberoffactors,mostsignificantlyanypreviouspatternsofintimidationandviolenceby theaccused,anyescalationofintimidationorthreat,andclosenessorintimacyofthe relationshipbetweenthevictim/witnessandoffender.Topromoteevaluationofriskas earlyintheprocessaspossible,considerbeginningwithbasicscreeningsandfollowingup laterintheprocesswithmorethoroughassessments. Regardlessoftheassessmentmethodused,itiscrucialtoactupontheresults.Systems shouldreactswiftlyandappropriatelybasedonassessments,strategicallyprovidingtimely servicesforinterventionandprotection. PracticePrinciple7.Createinformation‐sharingpoliciesthatlinkjusticesystemactorsandallow themtoidentifypatternsofbehaviorandpossibleintimidationinindividualcases. Intimidationisa“patterned”crime–perpetratorsintimidateinmultiplewaysand repeatedlyovertimeandoftenacrossrelationships.Therefore,understandingpast behaviorbecomesasimportantasunderstandingpresentbehaviorwhengaugingthe seriousnessofintimidationandtryingtopredictfuturethreatsandactions.Effective witnesssafetyprogramshavethecapacitytoidentifyanddocumentwitnessintimidation andtoprovidesystempractitionerswithseamlessaccesstopreviouscomplaintsbyor involvingthesamepeople.Ideally,911staff,lawenforcement,prosecutors,corrections, courtsecurity/courtadministration,andprobation/parolewouldbeableseecomplaintsof intimidationovertimeforasingleindividualinordertoassesstheescalationofathreat. Thisinformationshouldfollowvictims,witnesses,anddefendants,throughoutacase, ensuringthateveryonewhotouchesitandinteractswiththepartiesunderstandsthesafety concerns.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(lastvisitedJuly 17,2013);MOSAICTHREATASSESSMENTSSYSTEMS,https://www.mosaicmethod.com(lastvisitedJuly16,2013);DANGER ASSESSMENT,http://www.dangerassessment.org(lastvisitedJuly16,2013);NOVASCOTIAPUBLICPROSECUTIONSERVICE,RISK ASSESSMENTS(ODARA)INSPOUSAL/PARTNERVIOLENCECASES(2009), http://www.gov.ns.ca/pps/publications/ca_manual/ProsecutionPolicies/ODARA%20RISK%20ASSESSMENTS%20IN%2 0SPOUSALPARTNER%20CASES%20ALL.pdf. 14TheUnitedNationsOfficeonDrugsandCrimehasproposedsimilarfactorstobeconsideredinassessingrisktovictims ofhumantrafficking,butthattoolalsohasnotyetbeenvalidated. 19 Æ Æ Æ Æ IMPROVING WITNESS SAFETY AND PREVENTING WITNESS INTIMIDATION IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM: BENCHMARKS FOR PROGRESS peoplechangecourtvenuesandconfinementfacilities,orwhennewpersonnelassume responsibilityforacase.Thesearethetimeswhenlapsesincommunicationandaccessto informationoccur,andvictimsandwitnessesmaybemostvulnerabletointimidation. Aslocalteamsexploretheexpansionofinformationsharing,newinformationabout limitationsandobstacleswillariseandnewsafetyconcernswillsurface.15Whereitisnot possibletolinkagencydatabases,asdescribedabove,systemscanconsideraninformation‐ sharingnetwork.Forexample,Duluth,MinnesotadevelopedtheDomesticAbuse InformationNetwork(DAIN),togetaroundtheimpossibilityoftryingtoforceeveryone’s databasestoshare.16Instead,DAINisonedatabasethateveryonecanaccessthatincludes informationoncasehistory,risk,intimidation,andmore.Still,creatinganotherdatabase forpractitionerstousemaynotbethemostefficientwaytotrackintimidationanditmay notbefeasibleforsomejurisdictions.Thecriticalpiece,thatcannotbeoveremphasized,is thevalueofinter‐agencyandsystem‐widecommunication.Evenwhereresourcesare extremelylimited,anopendialoguebetweenjusticesystemandcommunityactorsshould bemaintained.Thesafetyofvictimsandwitnessesdependsonaccurateandcurrent information,sothateachsystemactorcanmakethebest‐informedsafetydecisions. PracticePrinciple8.Makeallreasonableeffortstominimizecontactbetweenvictims/witnessesand defendantsthroughoutthejusticesystemprocess. Physicallyseparatingvictimsandwitnessesfrompotentialthreatsthroughoutthe investigation,adjudication,andpost‐convictionprocessisoneofthebeststrategiesfor preventingintimidationandensuringsafety.Investigationsandinterviewsshouldbe carriedoutinawaythatavoidsmakingvictimsandwitnessesvulnerabletointimidation andretaliation.Theyshouldbeprivateandinformationshouldbekeptconfidential,where allowableundertherulesofdiscovery.Systemactorsshouldcommunicatewithvictims andwitnessesinwaysthatprotecttheiridentitiesanddonotexposeorbroadcasttheir cooperationtotheaccused,totheirfamilyandfriends,ortothecommunityatlarge.For example,policeinvestigatorsmaymeetwitnessesoutsideoftheirneighborhoodsorinplain clothestogatherinformation. Additionalstrategiessuccessfulinminimizingcontactbetweenvictims/witnessesand defendantsinclude:settinghighbailandseekingpreventivedetentionwhereallowableby law;usingwitnessprotectionprograms,orotherwiserelocatingvictimsandwitnesses;17 andissuingandenforcingno‐contactorders.Judicialofficersshouldconsiderthewishesof victimsandwitnessesinadditiontootherinformationaboutsafetyrisksandpotential escalationofintimidationandthreats.No‐contactordersshouldhaveclearconditions,and 15Newsafetyconcernscanarisefrominformationsharing,however.Forexample,incasesperpetratedbylaw enforcementofficersorindividualswhoworkwiththecourtsystem,andincasesoncollegecampuses,orinmilitary settings,unsafeinformationsharingcanbedangerous.Practitionerssharinginformation,inanyform,shouldbe extremelycautiousnottoputvictimsandwitnessesatfurtherrisk. 16FormoreinformationonDAIN,seeDomesticAbuseInterventionPrograms,www.theduluthmodel.org(lastvisitedAug. 1,2013). 17Temporaryhousing,suchasdomesticviolenceshelters,mayalsobeusedasshort‐termsolutionsindomesticviolence cases,andforcasesoncollegecampuses,changesinclassschedulesandcampushousingrelocationmayaffordsufficient separationoftheparties.Inanycase,thewishesofthevictimorwitnessshouldbeconsideredbeforerelocation,ass/he willbeartheburdenofadjustingtoanewroutineandenvironment. Æ Æ Æ Æ 20 IMPROVING WITNESS SAFETY AND PREVENTING WITNESS INTIMIDATION IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM: BENCHMARKS FOR PROGRESS appropriateresourcescommittedtotheirenforcementsothatconsequencesforviolations areswiftandcertain. Jailandprisonstaffalsoplaykeyrolesinminimizingcontactbycooperatingwithrequests toblockcallsfrominmatestovictimsorwitnessesandbymonitoringallformsof communicationinhigh‐riskcases.Casesmaybecharacterizedashigh‐riskbasedona threatassessment,onactionsorcommunicationsobservedbycorrectionsstaffor informants,oronincidentsreportedbyvictimsorwitnesses.Whentheaccusedandthe victimorwitnessarebothdetainedinthesamefacility(eitherpretrialorpost‐conviction), facilitystaffshouldquicklyidentifythesesituationsandtakeappropriatesafetymeasures, whichalwaysincludesphysicalseparation. Somejurisdictionshavetakenless‐traditionalapproachestoensurevictimandwitness safety.Inresponsetointimidationingang‐relatedcases,somecourtshavecreatedaspecial dockettoexpediteveryhigh‐riskcasesinordertominimizetheamountoftimevictimsand witnessesareexposedtothreats.Evenwithoutaspecialdocket,prosecutorscanrequest thatthesecasesbeprioritized.Policeinvestigatorsandprosecutorsmaytaketheadditional stepsofsecuringstatementsquicklyandearlyviarecordingsand/orsignedstatementsto protectagainstrecantationandfailedprosecutions.Whereasinglestrategyisinsufficient, programscanuseappropriatecombinationsofthesestrategies,basedonthelevelofrisk,to protectvictimsandwitnesses. PracticePrinciple9.Createasafespaceincourthouses. Unfortunately,nocriminaljusticesystemcanstopallintimidationfromtakingplace.What theycandoismakesafespacesforvictimsandwitnesses.Courthousesareonespace wherejusticesystemscanreasonablyexertasufficientlevelofcontrolandensurethat courthouses,includingcourtrooms,hallways,entrances,andgrounds,arefreefromthreats –bothovertandimplicit.Aswithalloftheseprinciples,differentcommunitieswillemploy differentstrategiestocreatesafecourthouses.Thestrategiesofferedherewillnotworkin everycommunity,buttheydoillustratesomeofthecreativewaysthatcriminaljustice systemscanensurevictimandwitnesssafety. Examplesofwhatothercommunitieshavedoneinclude: Signageandliteraturesettinggroundrulesforbehaviorandpenaltiesfor intimidation Activeandvisiblesecuritywhoidentify,report,andtrackpatternsof intimidation Securityscreeningofallenteringcourt(e.g.,metaldetectors,temporaryphone confiscation) Prohibitingrecordingorphotographyofvictimsandwitnessesinthe courthouse Courtroomandcourthousecheck‐ins,inordertoidentifyandseparatevictims andprosecutionwitnessesfromdefendantsanddefensewitnesses Securewaitingareasforvictimsandwitnesses Regularbriefingsofcourtpersonnelregardinghigh‐riskcasesandindividuals Videomonitoringinpublicspacesand/orcourtrooms 21 Æ Æ Æ Æ IMPROVING WITNESS SAFETY AND PREVENTING WITNESS INTIMIDATION IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM: BENCHMARKS FOR PROGRESS PracticePrinciple10.Tracktheprogressandoutcomesofeffortsandusethatinformationtoinform systemimprovement. Justicesystemsmustbeabletoobtain,understand,andintegrateinformationrelatedto victimandwitnessintimidationinordertomaximizesafety.Whetheroperatingundera newlydevelopedcoordinatedcriminaljusticeresponseteamorasindividuals,practitioners mustprioritizeeffortstocollectinformationandtouseittotrackeffectivenessandrefine safetystrategies.Therearemanysourcesofinformationincludinginterviewsandfocus groupswithstaff,victims,andwitnesses;observingjusticesystemprocesses;reviewsand analysesofcasereportsandfiles;andregularreportsfromagencydatabasesandintegrated informationsystems.Itisalsoimportanttogaugethepublicattitudeaboutcooperatingwith policeandifcommunitymembersfeeltheywouldbeprotectediftheybecameinvolvedina criminalcase. Informationthatcanbeusedtoinformevolvingstrategiesthatcanbecollectedovera periodoftime: Numberofarrestsforintimidation Numberofchargesandprosecutionsforintimidation(includingtrendsincharge reduction) Exposureofvictimsandwitnessestovulnerabilitiesinthecriminaljusticesystem (basedonthegapsidentifiedhere)andchangestothatexposure Prevalenceofunprosecutedreportsofcrime Prevalenceofstatementrecantation Prevalenceofdismissedprosecutionsduetowitnessnon‐cooperation Victim,witness,andcommunityresidentattitudestowardsafetyandcapacityof criminaljusticesystemtoprotectthemandhowthoseattitudeschange Interpretinginformationthatiscollectedanddiscerningtrendsisnotsimple.Beprepared tofindthat,asnewsafetyeffortsareintroduced,thenumberofidentifiedincidentsof intimidationmayactuallybeincreasedduetothefactthatindividualswhowouldnothave previouslyfeltcomfortablereportingthreatsarenowcomingforward.Evenasthe numberstaperoff,practitionerscanlooktocase‐by‐casesuccesseswherevictimsand witnessessafelyreport,cooperatewithinvestigationsandtestifyattrial,andcontinueto identifyareasforimprovement. CONCLUSION Thesebestpracticesprinciplesprovideanexcitingopportunityforjurisdictionstotakeaholistic approachtovictimandwitnesssafety.Thisapproachtakesastepbeyondcreatingsafetyprograms withalimitedreachornarrowfocus,tothepromiseofasafercommunityasawhole,with quantifiableresults. Nonetheless,thegnawingquestionthatremains,forleadershipinparticularis,“Howdowepayfor allofthis?”Whilethereisnoeasyanswer,theapproachpresentedheredoesnotanticipatethatall changeswilloccursimultaneouslyorthatallwillhavecostsattached.Onthecontrary,these principlesprovidebenchmarksagainstwhichsystemscanassesstheirstrengthsandchallenges andmakestrategicdecisionsaboutwhereneedsarethehighest.Justasmanyjusticesystemshave foundcreativewaystoreallocateandreinvestscarceresourcesintocommunitypolicingstrategies, Æ Æ Æ Æ 22 IMPROVING WITNESS SAFETY AND PREVENTING WITNESS INTIMIDATION IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM: BENCHMARKS FOR PROGRESS sotoowillsystemsdiscovernovelapproachestointegratethesebestpracticeprinciplesin preventingandrespondingtowitnessintimidation.Asjurisdictionsassesstheirresponses,they mayfindareasofduplicationoropportunitiestoshareinformationthatcanresultincostsavings. Still,therearesomeoptionsforfunding.TheOfficeonViolenceAgainstWomen,theOfficeon CommunityOrientedPolicingServices,theBureauofJusticeAssistance,theNationalInstituteof Justice,andmanyotherfederalandstateagencies,private‐publicpartnershipsandfoundations offerfundingfortheimplementationofresearch‐informedpractices.18ThisResourcepresentsan advantageforsystemslookingtoenhancetheirsafetyresponses.Itprovidesamodelformeasuring successanddocumentingprogress,whichisoftenimportantforattractingprivateandpublic resources.Evenso,eachcriminaljusticesystemmustdecideforitselfwhattheseprinciplesmean fortheirsystemsandhowtoshapetheirsafetynetsforvictimsandwitnesses. 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,OFFICEON VIOLENCEAGAINSTWOMEN,http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/ovwgrantprograms.htm(lastvisitedAug.17,2013);Funding,OFFICE OFJUSTICEPROGRAMS,BUREAUOFJUSTICEASSISTANCE,https://www.bja.gov/funding.aspx(lastvisitedAug.17,2013). 23 Æ Æ Æ Æ IMPROVING WITNESS SAFETY AND PREVENTING WITNESS INTIMIDATION IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM: BENCHMARKS FOR PROGRESS PartIII.ImplementingChange:AProcessforWitnessSafety AssessmentandImprovement Aremainingchallengetowitnesssafetyishowtoapplylessonslearnedfromresearchintoreal‐life practice.Sofarinthispublication,wehavedefinedbothaconceptualmodelforquantifyingthe prevalenceofintimidationandasetofbestpracticeprinciplespromotingvictimandwitnesssafety inthejusticesystemandthecommunity.Thistranslationofresearchintopracticeshapesvictims’ andwitnesses’experiencesandmakesitsaferforthemtoreportcrimesandparticipateinthe criminaljusticeprocess.PartIIIofthisResourcediscussesthemethodologyforimplementingthis change. ThemethodologypresentedbelowisinformedbytheexperiencesoftheImprovingtheJustice SystemResponsetoWitnessIntimidation(IWI)initiativeandiscomprisedofsixactionstepsthatuse thebestpracticeprinciplestoguidedevelopmentofacomprehensiveandcoordinatedresponseto victimandwitnessintimidation.Theactionsteps,discussedingreaterdetailbelow,are: 1. Ensurethatthejusticesystemhasthecapacitytochange 2. Conveneanactionteamtoguidetheassessmentandleadtheimplementation 3. Definethecurrentstateofvictimandwitnesssafety 4. Compareexistingpracticetobestpractices 5. Developandimplementanactionableplan 6. Monitor,evaluate,andimprovevictimandwitnesssafetyefforts BACKGROUNDONMETHODOLOGY IWIwasthelaunchingpointtodefiningthismethodologyforimplementingchangeinhowjustice systemsrespondtointimidation.From2010‐2013,AEquitasreceivedfundingfromtheU.S. DepartmentofJustice,OfficeofJusticePrograms,BureauofJusticeAssistancetoworkwiththree sites–Duluth,Minnesota;Knoxville,Tennessee;andSanDiego,California–toevaluatetheir systems’responsestowitnessintimidation.19IWI’sworkwiththesesiteswaslargelydefinedby theSafetyandAccountabilityAudit,createdandusedbyPraxisInternationaltoexaminejustice systemsandotherinstitutions’responsestodomesticviolence. ThePraxisSafetyandAccountabilityAudit,developedbyEllenPence,isanapplicationof ethnographicworktodomesticviolence.Ithasbeenusedinnearlyahundredcommunities throughouttheUnitedStatestoevaluatetheirresponsetodomesticviolencebyexamininghowthe workroutinesofcriminaljusticepractitionersaccountforvictimsafetyandoffenderaccountability. However,IWImayrepresenttheAudit’sfirstapplicationtovictimandwitnesssafetyacross differenttypesofcrime. ThethreeauditsconductedunderIWIweresuccessfulatidentifyingvulnerabilitiesandgapsinthe justicesystemwherevictimsandwitnesseswerebeingintimidated.Onelesson,however,wasthat thesitesneededsupporttotranslatetheirfindingsandrecommendationsfromtheauditsinto Æ 19TheJusticeManagementInstituteservedasevaluatorandadvisortotheinitiative. Æ Æ Æ 24 IMPROVING WITNESS SAFETY AND PREVENTING WITNESS INTIMIDATION IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM: BENCHMARKS FOR PROGRESS action.20Thislessonisechoedinanunrelatedreviewofsafetyauditsconductedin2010byDr. LucillePopeforPraxisInternational.Dr.Popeencouragedfutureauditteamstoengageexplicitlyin actionplanningtotranslatefindingsandrecommendationsintoresponsestothegapsuncovered. Shestated,“TheAuditisthoughtofasadistinctandseparateeventdisconnectedfrom implementation.Approachingtheauditasaprocessofreflectionandactiontoimprovesafetyand accountabilityiskeytosuccessfulimplementation.”21AEquitasandJMIthereforeprovided additionalsupporttoeachsite’steamtodevelopactionplansandtomonitortheimplementationof specificresponsestothegapstheyidentified.Asaresult,itbecameclearthattherewasaneedto defineaprocessforchange.PartIIIdescribestheprocessandhowtodefineandmonitor implementation. ACTIONSTEP1.ENSURETHATTHEJUSTICESYSTEMHASTHECAPACITYTOCHANGE Manyjurisdictionsareill‐equippedtoensurethesafetyofvictimsandwitnesses.Withinthejustice system,therearenumerousgapswherevictimsandwitnessescanbe,andoftenare,threatened, manipulated,emotionallyabused,andphysicallyattacked.Tobuildaneffectivejusticesystem responsetointimidation,currentpracticesmustchange.Thesystemcanaccomplishthischangeby identifyinghoweffectivelyitprotectsvictimsandwitnessesandthentakingmeaningfulactionto enhanceitsresponsesandclosegaps.22 Thefirststepistoensurethatthesystemhasthecapacitytochange.Assessingcapacity23canbea helpfulwayforsystemstoidentifyareasofstrengthandareaswhereconsultation,technical assistance,orothersupportanddevelopmentmaybeneeded.AppendixDprovidesatoolfor practitionerstousewhenmeasuringreadinesstochangethatfocusesonacommonsetof indicators.24Therearefourmajorindicatorsrepresented: 1. Communityandorganizationalclimatethatfacilitateschange, 2. Currentattitudesandeffortstowardvictimandwitnesssafety, 3. Commitmenttochange,and 4. Capacitytoimplementchange. Withinthesefour,thereareadditionalindicatorsthatrangefromthecollectiveefficacyofthe workingteamtotheskillsandknowledgeoftheindividualsinvolvedintheeffortstochange. Theseindicatorsemphasizetheimportanceofcollaborationandinvestment,notonlyamong leadershipbutalsoamongpractitioners.Withoutthesebasicingredients,ajusticesystemcannot effectandsustainchange.Technicalassistanceprovidersandjusticesystemslookingtodevelop witnesssafetyreformareadvisedtotakethetimetoassessreadinesstochangeandtobuild capacitywhereitmayneedimprovement.Unliketheimplementationofaprogramwithlimited scope,systemicwitnesssafetyresponsesarecomplexandrequirebroadconsensusand cooperation.Systemleadersaremostsuccessfulatimplementingsustainablechangewhenthey investtimeinbuildingthenecessaryrelationshipsandsystemiccapacitytoidentifyandresolve problemscreatively. 20LUCILLEPOPE,IMPLEMENTATIONOFSAFETYAUDITRECOMMENDATIONS,PRAXISINT’L(Mar.2010), http://www.praxisinternational.org/files/praxis/files/Safety%20Audits/TTAImplementationSurveyJune2011.pdf. 21Id.at8. 22Thisapproachisbasedontheleadershiptheoryknownas“changemanagement.” 23Oftencalled“readinesstochange.” 24SeeAppendixBforadditionaltools. 25 Æ Æ Æ Æ IMPROVING WITNESS SAFETY AND PREVENTING WITNESS INTIMIDATION IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM: BENCHMARKS FOR PROGRESS ACTIONSTEP2.CONVENEANACTIONTEAMTOGUIDETHEASSESSMENTANDLEADIMPLEMENTATION Bringingtogetheradiverse,interdisciplinarygroupofstakeholderstoengageintheprocessof analysisandchangeisessentialtosuccessfulimplementationofchange.Becausetheaimistobuild acoordinatedsystemresponse,leadershipfromeachkeystakeholdergroupinthecriminaljustice systemmustbeincluded.This“actionteam”maycometogetherspecificallyforthepurposeof engaginginthewitnesssafetysystemsanalysisoritmayalreadyexist,suchasintheformofa criminaljusticecoordinatingcouncilormulti‐disciplinarytaskforce.Whereanorganization alreadyexists,itmaybebeneficialtostartfromthatfoundation.Oneofthebiggestchallengesto implementingawitnesssafetyprogramislimitedresources,soestablishedrelationshipsthatallow stakeholderstosharestaffandresourceswillbehelpfulinfacilitatingswiftresults. Thevictimandwitnesssafetyanalysisbeginswiththeactionteam’ssharedunderstandingof witnesssafety,whichinvolvesbuildingconsensusaroundthefollowingthreemajorsetsof questions: 1. Whatdoesthelatestresearchandpracticeliteraturerevealaboutthenatureofvictimand witnessintimidation?Whataretheemergingtrends? 2. Howdowedefineintimidationinourcommunity?Whatarethebehaviorsweneedto targetinoureffortstopreventandrespondtointimidation?Whatbehaviorsdoweagree necessitatecriminaljusticeinterventionatsomelevel? 3. Whomdoesourwitnesssafetysystemprotect?Howdoesoursystemdefinea“victim”or “witness”? Consensusbuildingmaybefacilitatedinternally,althoughsomejurisdictionsmayfindithelpfulto haveanoutsidefacilitator–independentofthesystem–toguidetheexerciseinaretreatsetting. Whilesomeofthesequestionsmayseembasic,theyareimportanttoaskasteammembersoften underestimatethedegreetowhichthey’vemadeassumptionsabouthowtheircolleagueswill answer.Thesequestionsaremorethanboilerplate;theyarefundamentaltothedefinitionand assessmentofcommunitysafety.Raisingandresolvingassumptionsearlyintheprocesshelpsto avoidconfusionandconflictlater.Italsoprovidesabenchmarkforassessingsuccessandprogress andwhatkindsofresponsesarenecessary.Thesequestionswilllikelyberevisitedthroughoutthe process;suchreflectionisimportantovertime.Whatiskeyisthattheteammaintainsashared understandingofwitnesssafety. ACTIONSTEP3.DEFINETHECURRENTSTATEOFVICTIMANDWITNESSSAFETY Onceconvened,theactionteamshouldlaunchintothenexttaskofdetermininghowsafevictims andwitnessesareintheirjurisdiction.This“asis”assessmentsetsthestartingpointagainstwhich theteamwillgaugeitsprogressandthesuccessofitsworkinthefuture.Theaim,ofcourse,isto developacriminaljusticesystemthatissaferforvictimsandwitnessesthanwhentheactionteam beganitswork.Makingthatdeterminationrequiresaquantifiableunderstandingofwherethe systembegins.Wehavealreadyacknowledgedthatintimidationisdifficulttoquantify.Figure1, theConceptualModelofPrevalenceofIntimidation,providesaframeworkforquantifyingvictimand witnessintimidationbydistinguishingtwothings:“opportunitiesforintimidation”andthe “documentedincidenceofintimidation.”25 Æ 25Suprap.15. Æ Æ Æ 26 IMPROVING WITNESS SAFETY AND PREVENTING WITNESS INTIMIDATION IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM: BENCHMARKS FOR PROGRESS Determining“opportunitiesforintimidation” PartIIprovidedavisualrepresentationofthecriminaljusticeprocessthathighlightscommon “opportunitiesforintimidation”andprovidesthebasisforActionStep3.26SeeFigure2.Mapof CommonOpportunitiesforIntimidationandGapsinVictimandWitnessSafety.Theactionteam shouldworktodeterminewhereitbelievesvulnerabilitieslieinitsjurisdiction.Itshouldalso validateitsassessmentwithotherpractitionersandvictimsandwitnesses.Validationhelpsensure thattheprocessmapandcharacterizationof“opportunitiesforintimidation”capturereal experiencesofpeopleinvolvedinthesystem(ratherthananidealizedversionofeventsorsystem responses).Thisinclusiveprocessalsohelpstobuildinvestmentinthewitnesssafetyworkand communicatestheleadership’scommitmenttoensuringthatvictimsandwitnessesareprotected. Atoolforthisprocess,aProtocolforassessingandquantifying“opportunitiesforintimidation” appearsatAppendixE.Thisprotocolisbasedonthemapofthecriminaljusticeprocess(Figure2) andtheopportunitiesforintimidationthatmatchupwiththem(e.g.,identitiesofinformantsnot beingkeptconfidential,interviewsbeingtakeninpresenceofallegedperpetrators,ongoingre‐ assessmentofriskisnottakingplace,etc.).Foreachstageandopportunityforintimidationthereis ascaletomeasureprevalence:1)neverhappens;2)sometimeshappens;3)oftenhappens;and4) alwayshappens. Theactionteam–alongwithfocusgroupsofpractitioners,victims,andwitnesses27–canusethis tooltocometoaconsensusaboutsafetygapsandhowtheyareaddressedbyscoringeach opportunityforintimidationonthefour‐pointscalethatcharacterizesthedegreetowhichitis presentintheirsystem.Scoresfromallgroupswillthenbeconsideredintheaggregatetoidentify systemvulnerabilities.Byincludingmultipleperspectives,theanalysisismorelikelytopinpoint truevulnerabilities.Facilitatorsmayalsowanttohavefocusgroupssummarizetheiroverall perspectivesofthestagesidentifiedinAppendixE.Thesesummariesmaybehelpfulinquickly flaggingstagesthatareparticularlyvulnerable. Anexampleofascaleforthesesummaries: 1–nosafetymeasuresinplace;intimidationcaneasilyhappenunhampered 2–minimalsafetymeasuresinplace;overtintimidationmaybepartiallyaddressedor prevented 3–moderatesafetymeasuresinplace;overtintimidationisaddressedandprevented;other formsofintimidationmaybepartiallyaddressed 4–highlyeffectivesafetymeasuresinplace;intimidationisextremelyunlikely Oncethefocusgroupsarecompleted,theactionteamreviewsthescoresofeachgroupand summarizesthefindings.Again,aggregatingthesescoreshelpshomeinonthevulnerabilitiesor intimidation“opportunities”inthesystem.Ifthereareareasofwidedisparityamongfocusgroups, theactionteammaywanttoprioritizetheseareasforfurtherinvestigationthroughprocess observation,forinstance. 26Generally,acriminaljusticesystem’sprocessmapwillbequitesimilartothegenericrepresentationofferedinthis publication,buttheactionteamshouldcertainlyreviseittodepictaccuratelyitsownsystem. 27Relativelyrecentvictimsandwitnessesarebesttoparticipateinthisprocess,becausetheirexperienceswillbe reflectiveofcurrentpractices. 27 Æ Æ Æ Æ IMPROVING WITNESS SAFETY AND PREVENTING WITNESS INTIMIDATION IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM: BENCHMARKS FOR PROGRESS Determining“documentedincidenceofwitnessintimidation” Thesecondpartofthisassessmentinvolvesdocumentingtheprevalenceofreported28intimidation. Reportsofintimidationcanhappenatanypointinthecriminaljusticeprocess.Onemeasureof prevalenceisthenumberofcaseswhereintimidationischargedcriminally.However,thismeasure focusesonlyontheadjudicationstageandthereareotherpointswherereportsofintimidationmay bemade.Foracompleteunderstandingoftheproblem,theactionteamwillwanttoconsider prevalenceofreportedintimidationatallstages. Examplesofmeasurabledocumentedincidents,fromthemapinFigure2are: Numberof911callsreportingintimidation Numberoffirstrespondervisitsbylawenforcementwherevictimorwitnessreports intimidation Numberofreportsofintimidationtovictimadvocates Numberofreportsofintimidationtoprosecutors’offices Numberofformalintimidationchargesbroughtagainstdefendants Numberofno‐contactordersrelatedtointimidationinacriminalmatter Numberofreportsofintimidationwithinjailsandothercorrectionalinstitutions Atanyofthesestages,theremaybeotherfactorstoconsider.First,howoftenarevictimsand witnessesaffirmativelyaskedtoshareinformationaboutintimidation?Second,whatstatutesor legalavenuesexistthatfacilitatechargingintimidationcriminally?Iflawenforcementdoesnot generallyaskaboutintimidation,thatisimportanttounderstandandhighlight.Itisalsoimportant forpractitionerstounderstandthatintimidatingconductmaybechargeableunderavarietyof statutes,(e.g.,threats,harassment,criminalmischief/vandalism,obstructionofjustice,witness tampering,etc.)andhowchargingtheseoffensesmightbeappropriateinanygivensituation. Inevitably,theactionteamwilldiscoverlimitationswithintheirinformationsystems.Forinstance, lawenforcementofficersandprosecutorsmaynotbedocumentingwhattheyhearabout intimidatingbehavior.Victimadvocatesmayberecordingthatinformationintheirpaperfilesbut havenowaytoreportitintheaggregate.Alternatively,advocatesmaybeprohibitedfrom disclosingduetoprivilegeandconfidentialitylaws.29Convictionsmightincludecrimesmotivated byintimidation,butnotbeidentifiedassuchinthejudgment.Theseareimportantfindingsand willneedtobeconsideredastheactionteammovestotheplanningandimplementationstages. Asmentionedbefore,notalljurisdictionshavethecapacitytointegratetheirdatabasesamong agenciesorreadilyshareinformation.Wheretheinformationneededisnotavailable,theaction teammayconsidersamplingarandomsetofcasesorfilestoestimateofthefrequencyof intimidation.Scarcityofresourcestocollectandreportthisinformationmaypresentanobstacle butnotonethatisinsurmountable.Researchpartnerswithinthejusticesystemoratlocal universitiesmaybeabletoassistwithestablishingappropriatesamplingproceduresand 28“Reported,”includesanytimethatavictimorwitnesstellsacriminaljusticeprofessionalaboutathreat. 29Forfurtherdiscussionofconfidentialityandprivilege,seeViktoriaKristiansson,WalkingaTightrope:BalancingVictim PrivacyandOffenderAccountabilityinDomesticViolenceandSexualAssaultProsecutions,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,Walkinga Tightrope:BalancingVictimPrivacyandOffenderAccountabilityinDomesticViolenceandSexualAssaultProsecutions,Part II,10STRATEGIES(2013), http://www.aequitasresource.org/Issue_10_Walking_A_Tightrope_Balancing_Victim_Privacy_and_Offender_Accountabilit y_in_Domestic_Violence_and_Sexual_Assault_Prosecutions_Part_II_May_2013.pdf. Æ Æ Æ Æ 28 IMPROVING WITNESS SAFETY AND PREVENTING WITNESS INTIMIDATION IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM: BENCHMARKS FOR PROGRESS conductingtheanalysis.Thesestepsareaworthwhileinvestmentofeffortbecauseitiscriticalthat theactionteamunderstandthescopeofitsexistingresponsetovictimandwitnessintimidation.30 ACTIONSTEP4.COMPAREEXISTINGPRACTICETOBESTPRACTICES Nowthattheactionteamunderstandsthescopeofintimidationinitssystem,itisreadytoidentify whereexistingpracticesarealreadyalignedwiththebestpracticeprinciplesdiscussedinPartII. Ultimately,thisexerciseallowstheteamtopinpointspecificchangestopolicyandpracticethatcan improvesafety.Twotoolsareofferedtofacilitatethisprocess.Thefirst,AppendixF,reiteratesthe tenbestpracticeprinciplesandprovidesinformation‐gatheringstrategiestohelpunderstandthe currentresponse.Theserecommendationsaremeanttoguidetheactionteamasitdetermines whereitsjusticesystemalignswiththeprinciplesandwhereitdoesnot.Theyinvolveamixof approaches,includingquantitativeanalysisofinformationsystems,policyreviews,observations, interviews,andfocusgroups.Thesecond,AppendixG,providesarubrictodeterminehowwellthe systemisalignedwiththebestpracticeprinciples.Foreachbestpracticeprinciple,thereisalow‐ to‐highscalethatincludesspecificexamplesofactivitiesforeachlevel. Atthispoint,theactionteamhasquantifiedkeyvulnerabilitiesinitscriminaljusticesystem (“opportunitiesforintimidation”)andtheprevalenceofreportedintimidation.Thesefindings highlightspecificpracticesthatcanbeimplementedand/orfurtherdevelopedtoenhancewitness safety,andprovideabaselineagainstwhichtheactionteamcanmeasurechange.Theactionteam nowknowswhereitisstartingandunderstandswhatopportunitiesandneedsthereareforchange withsomeguidanceaboutstrategiesitcouldusetoeffectchange.Theteamisnowpoisedto chooseprioritiesandbegintotakeaction. ACTIONSTEP5.DEVELOPANDIMPLEMENTANACTIONABLEPLAN ActionSteps1‐4willlikelyrevealanumberofareasforimprovementtovictimandwitnesssafety aswellassuggestareasoffocus.Theactionteamcannotfocusonalloftheseareasatonce.Itwill needtoworkcollectivelytosetprioritiesandgoals/objectives,whichcanbedonebydevelopingan “actionplan.”Therearemanyformatsforactionplansonline,butthatislessimportantthanthe levelofagreementandcommitmentbehindtheplan.31However,actionplansshouldataminimum addressthefollowing: 30Sharinginformationprovidedbyacrimevictimimplicatesprivilegedandconfidentialinformation.Foradiscussionon howtobalancelegalobligationwithvictimsafety,seesupranote29. 31SeeAppendixB,infra. 29 Æ Æ Æ Æ IMPROVING WITNESS SAFETY AND PREVENTING WITNESS INTIMIDATION IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM: BENCHMARKS FOR PROGRESS Table2.ActionPlanningFormat Goal Whattargetdoyouwantto reach?Whatispurposeofyouraction?Whatwill bedifferentasaresultofthechange? Victimsandwitnesseswhovisitthecourtwillfeelsafe;theywillunderstandthat thecourtiscommittedtoprotectingthemfromintimidationandisworking hardtodoso Æ Æ Æ Objectives Whatspecific outcomesneedtobeachievedtoreachthisgoal?Whoorwhat willchange,byhowmuch,andoverwhatperiodoftime? TasksorActivities Whatspecificactionsstepsortasksmustbeundertakentomakethese objectivesareality? Person(s) Responsible Whoisresponsibleforensuringthetasksoractivitiesareaccomplished withinthespecifiedtimeframe? ResourcesNeeded Whatfinancial,time, space,equipment, andhumanresourcesarenecessaryto implementtasksandactivitieswithinthespecifiedtimeframe? Timeline Whatisthetimeframeforimplementingthetasksandactivities?When shouldworkbegin?Whenshouldtheworkendandsomethingbeproduced? Outputs Whatdeliverablesorproductsshouldresultfromcompletionofthetasksand activities? Æ Over90percentofvictimsandwitnesseswillunderstandhowtoidentify intimidatingbehaviorinthecourthouseandknowthemultipleoptionsthey haveforreportingtheintimidationandseekinghelp. Trainjusticesystempractitionerstoidentify,document,andtrackwitness intimidation;practitioners,inturn,willadvocateforandeducatevictimsand witnesses. Inmostjurisdictionsresponsibleteammembersincludecourtsecurityofficers, victimliaisonsemployedbycriminaljusticeagencies(e.g.,prosecutor’sofficeor lawenforcementagency),andcommunity‐basedadvocateswhoaccompany victimstocourt.Dependingontheresponsibilitiesofcourthousepractitioners andpersonnel,someteamsmightalsoincludejudges,bailiffs,clerksofcourt,or courtadministrators. Financesfortrainersandtrainingmaterials;spacefortrainingsaswellas regularteammeetings;equipmentsuchaslaptop,screen,andprojector,if neededfortraining;andparticipationofteammembersinmeetingsand training. Month1:Investigaterelevantlaw,policy,andanycurrentissues/complaints; Month2:Securetrainersandvenue,draftmaterials,advertisetraining;Month3: Peerreviewtrainingmaterials;finalizelogistics(e.g.,printing,refreshments,or AVequipment). Facilitatorfortrainingidentifiedandcontractentered;trainingcurriculumis developed;20courtsecurityofficershavebeentrained;etc. 30 IMPROVING WITNESS SAFETY AND PREVENTING WITNESS INTIMIDATION IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM: BENCHMARKS FOR PROGRESS Manyjurisdictionsfindithelpfultoinviteafacilitatortoguidediscussionsaboutprioritiesand planningforimplementation.Makingsenseofalloftheinformationandconductingtheanalyses requiresthoughtfuldiscussion,whichmaybeeasierwithanindependent,skilledfacilitator,guiding teammembers.Theactionteamremainsresponsiblefortheprocessofchoosingprioritiesand craftingtheplan.Whentheteamitselfismakingthecriticaldecisions,theindividualsinvolvedare farmoreinvestedintheplanandinitsultimatesuccess. Makinganactionplanthatisspecificischallenging,butwithclearexpectations,theplanbecomesa toolforaccountability,indicatingwhenexpectationsarenotbeingmet.Again,anexperienced facilitator–whetherinternalorexternal–canhelptosettherighttonebyfocusingongroup accountabilitytotheplan(theactionplanis“owned”bytheactionteam)andtheaccountabilityof memberstooneanother.Thepurposeisnottopointfingerswhenthingsgowrongbuttotake responsibilityandmakethingsrightsogoalsandobjectivescanbereached.Onemethodologythat canbeusedtodevelopspecificandmeasurableobjectivesistheSMART(Specific,Measurable, Achievable,Realistic,andTime‐Bound)process.32TheSMARTprocessprovidesachecklistfor teamstoassessandimproveobjectives.AbriefoverviewofSMARTisofferedinAppendixH. Oncetheactionplanhasbeendrafted,theteammaywanttogobacktothegroupsorindividuals involvedinActionSteps1‐4(ensuringcapacityforchange,formingateam,definingcurrentstateof witnesssafety,comparingexistingpracticestobestpractice).Invitingtheirfeedbackandcomments willhelpbuildasenseofownershipamongthem,whichisimportantforthesuccessful implementationofchange.Thefeedbackandcommentswillalsolikelyprovideadditionalcontext inwhichtoconsiderthedecisionsandideas,whichwillhelprefineandstrengthentheplan. Theactionteamcanapproachimplementationinavarietyofways.Itcanaimtoincreasethelevel ofengagementamongpractitioners,withthegoalofhavingthemcommittothechangeefforts. Alternatively,theteam’sgoalsmaybetodevelopawarenessandunderstandingofitsownwitness safetyresponses.Theteamshouldweightheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofthesedifferent approachesandshouldincorporatejurisdictionalneedsandcapacityforchangeintheprocess. Figure3,below,offersahelpfulwayforactionteamstoconsidertheprocessofcommunicating abouttheireffortsandtheimplementationofnewinitiatives.33Thefigure,fromtheworkofthe QueenslandGovernmentPublicServiceCommission,isa“communicationcontinuum.”Itdepicts levelsofengagementthatleadersgenerateinkeyconstituentsduringcommunicationabout change.Thecommissionexplains, Whenanykindofchangeisannounced,peoplearehungryforinformation.Inthe absence of sufficient information and opportunities to digest it through two‐way ‘conversations’, change can be stalled. People will continue to work as they have done in the past; or rather than risk doing the ‘wrong’ thing, they do nothing. Effective communication is designed to create awareness and understanding in ordertogetsubsequentsupportiveaction.Therationaleisthatifyouwantpeople tochange,theyneedtoinvestinthechangesyouareaskingthemtomake,andthey aremorelikelytodothatiftheyunderstandthebenefitsofthechange. 32GeorgeT.Doran,G.T.There'sAS.M.A.R.T.WayToWriteManagement'sGoalsAndObjectives,70MANAGEMENTREVIEW (AMAFORUM)35‐36(1981). 33ThePublicServiceCommission(PSC)inQueensland(Australia)advisesthegovernmentontheadministrationofthe Queenslandpublicsectorandthemanagementandemploymentofpublicsectoremployees.Itsmissionistodevelopand implementpublicsectorworkforceandorganizationalmanagementstrategies.Amongitsobjectivesisbuilding collaborationwithingovernmenttodeliversmarter,simpleroutcomesthatareresponsivetopublicneeds. 31 Æ Æ Æ Æ IMPROVING WITNESS SAFETY AND PREVENTING WITNESS INTIMIDATION IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM: BENCHMARKS FOR PROGRESS Figure3.CommunicationContinuumAdaptedfromQueenslandPublicServiceCommission,Change ManagementBestPracticesGuide. Actionplanningiscriticaltoimplementingchange.Itisworthtakingsometimetobespecificabout goalsandobjectives,buildaccountabilitywithintheactionteam,buildaccountabilitybetweenthe teamandoutsidejusticesystemandcommunityleaders,andcommunicateadetailedplantoa broadaudience.Asaresult,teamsavoidcreatingastaticactionplanandinsteadareabletomeet challengesandpressures.Thisprocess,knownas“chaoticchange,”meansthatactionteamslearn moreastheybeginimplementingtheirplansandarepreparedtomakeadjustmentsthatmaybe necessitatedbyshiftingpoliticalpriorities,leadershiptransitions,ornewpublicpressures.34The team’scommitmenttochange,however,andtoitsgoalsandobjectivesshouldcontinuetoguideits workthoughanyunanticipateddevelopments. ACTIONSTEP6.MONITOR,EVALUATE,ANDIMPROVEVICTIMANDWITNESSSAFETYEFFORTS Intheearlystagesoftheimplementingtheactionplan,teamsshouldmeetregularly–ideally monthly–toensuretimelinesaremetandthattasksareaccomplishedoractivitiescarriedoutas expected.Teamsshouldknowwhatactivitiesoccurred,theirquality,andthestrengthsand weaknessesoftheirimplementation.Wheretimelinesarenotbeingmet,itisimportanttoask, “Howcanwegetbackontrack,”ratherthan,“Whoistoblameforthis.”Diligentlymonitoring progressandrespondingquicklytounexpectedsituationshelpstostrengthenandensureeffective implementationofchange. Theactionplanprovidesatemplateformonitoringactivities.Regularreviewsarenotonly opportunitiestoassessprogressbutalsoatimewhentheteamcanreflectonlessonslearnedand refineitsactionplanaccordingly.Table3belowisatoolforteamstodetermineprogress,review theplan,andconsiderwhatadjustmentsmaybeneeded.Thisisanongoingprocess. 34Formoreinformationon“chaoticchange”andchangemanagementinthepublicsector,seeTomKarp&ThomasI.T. Helgo,ChangeManagementtoChangeLeadership:EmbracingChaoticChangeinPublicServiceOrganizations,8JOURNALOF CHANGEMANAGEMENT85‐96(2008). Æ Æ Æ Æ 32 IMPROVING WITNESS SAFETY AND PREVENTING WITNESS INTIMIDATION IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM: BENCHMARKS FOR PROGRESS Table3.UsingtheActionPlanAsAMonitoringGuide ActionPlan Section ProgressPrompts Person(s) Responsible Didtheoriginalpersonresponsible accomplishthetask?Whoactually contributedtomakingtheactivity happen? Tasksor Activities Resources Needed Wastheactivityortaskachievedas describedorintended?Howwasit accomplished? Whatdoestheexperienceheretellusabout howwestructurefutureactivities?How mightweneedtorevisithowwehave definedotherpartsoftheactionplan? Whoelseneedstobeinvolvedinfuture activitieslikethisone?Whatsupportdo thoseresponsibleneedtosucceedinthe future? Whatresourceswereactuallyusedto Howdoesthisexperienceinformorchange achievethistask?Howdidthatcompare estimatesofresourcesneededforupcoming totheplan?Wasthisover/under tasks? budget?Didittakemorehoursorfewer? Timeline Whenwasthistaskcompleted?Wasthis “ontime”? Outputs Whatwasachievedasaresultofthistask oractivity?(e.g.,Howmanypeople attendedthetraining?Whatwastheir background?Didtheydemonstratenew skillsandknowledge?Howsatisfied wereparticipantswiththetraining?) Howdidtheoutputscomparetothe originalplan? Objectives LessonsLearned Whatobjectivesweremet?Whatinterim progresswasmadetowardthe objectives?Whatinformationhavewe collectedtosupportfutureanalysisof objectives? Howdoesthisexperienceinformorchange timeestimatesforupcomingtasks?How doestheactualtimeframeaffecttherestof theplanandexpecteddatesofdelivery? Howmightweneedtocompensatefor unmetoutputs?Howdoesthisexperience changeestimationsofoutputsforupcoming tasks? Whatdoweneedtododifferentlytoensure thatwewillmeetourdesiredobjectives? Whatdoweneedtoensurethatthe informationavailablecanbeusedtomeasure ourobjectives? InActionStep2,theteamlookedatopportunitiesforintimidationanddocumentedincidenceof intimidation,andestablishedabaselineorpointofcomparisonastheimplementationprocesstook shape.Thesemeasures,usedtokickoffchange,shouldbeusedagainduringimplementationto assessprogressandoutcomes.Forexample,theactionteammayhaveidentifiedmeasuressuchas intimidationchargesfiled,policereportsofintimidation,andrecantations.Astheactionplanis implemented,theycanberevisitedandreassessedtodeterminewhathaschangedasaresultof implementation.Analysisofoutcomesisnotalwaysstraightforwardandmayrequirediscussion. Forexample,duringearlyimplementation,theteammightseetheprevalenceofreportsincreaseas morevictimsandwitnessesknowhowtoreportintimidationorfeelmorecomfortabledoingso. Overthelongterm,reportsmightdecrease,suggestingsomeimpactonintimidatingbehavior.The actionteamshouldcollectinformationtogaugeoutcomesovertimeormaywanttocontractwith anoutsideevaluatortodothis.Ifthelatter,documentingnotonlyinformationrelatedtooutcomes 33 Æ Æ Æ Æ IMPROVING WITNESS SAFETY AND PREVENTING WITNESS INTIMIDATION IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM: BENCHMARKS FOR PROGRESS butalsotheprocessofimplementationitselfwillbeinvaluabletoanevaluator.Potentialpartners forthesekindsofevaluationsincludelocaluniversitiesornonprofitresearchorganizations. CONCLUSION Thesafetyofvictimsandwitnessesiscriticaltotheadministrationofjustice.Thispublication advancesanunderstandingofvictimandwitnessintimidation,andprovidestoolstohelptranslate researchintoeffectivepractices.Theapplicationofthisunderstandingandthesebestpractice principleswillresultinbetteroutcomesforthevictimsandwitnesseswhoputsomuchontheline whencooperatingwiththejusticesystem.Ensuringtheirconfidenceinthesystem’sabilityto protectthemwhentheycooperatewithlawenforcementandprosecutorsfacilitatestherendering ofjusticeandadvancementofpublicsafety.Preventiveandprotectiveapproachesinmanyjustice systemstodayaremoreprogramthansystemresponseandare“siloed”atseparateanddistinct stagesofthejusticeprocessratherthansustainingvictimandwitnesssafetythroughout. Sustainingvictimandwitnesssafetyrequirescomprehensivesystemiccommitmentsandresponses thatpromotesafety. ThisResourcenotonlyhelpspractitionersdefinethescopeoftheintimidationproblemintheir justicesystemsbutalsoprovidesaframeworkforquantifyingtheproblemandenhancingsafety. Translatingthisknowledgeintopractice–indeedintosystemschange–requiresaconcertedeffort toeffectandsustainchange.Here,wehavepresentedaprocesstomeasurechangethatincludesan assessmentofthesystem’scapacitytochange(ActionStep1),measurementoftheintimidation problemusingatwo‐partconceptualmodel(ActionStep3),andtheanalysisofgapsandalignment withbestpractices(ActionStep4).Theactionplangrowsfromtheseanalysesandfromthe commitmentandcollaborationofleadershipandstakeholdersfromthroughoutthecriminaljustice system(ActionSteps2and5).Anactionteamthenmonitorsandevaluatesprogressandoutcomes overtime(ActionStep6).Thisprocessisintensiveandtakestime.Victimandwitnesssafetyis pervasiveandcomplex,requiringahighlevelofcommitmentfromjusticesystemandcommunity actors.Thispublicationpresentsanapproachthatisuptothetaskoftacklingtheproblemof intimidationandmakinglastingadvancesinvictimandwitnesssafety. Æ Æ Æ Æ 34 APPENDICES Appendices:Tools,Tables,andAdditionalResources APPENDIXA:PARTIIRESOURCES Thefollowingworksprovidedmostofthebasisfortheprinciplesandexamplesofbestpractices discussedinPartII: 1. KELLYDEDEL,OFFICEOFCOMMUNITYORIENTEDPOLICINGSERVICES,PROBLEM‐ORIENTEDGUIDESFOR POLICEPROBLEM‐SPECIFICGUIDESERIESNO.42,WITNESSINTIMIDATION(July2006), http://www.popcenter.org/problems/pdfs/witness_intimidation.pdf. 2. PETERFINN&KERRYMURPHYHEALEY,NAT’LINSTITUTEOFJUSTICE,ISSUESANDPRACTICIES, PREVENTINGGANG‐RELATEDANDDRUG‐RELATEDWITNESSINTIMIDATION,ISSUESANDPRACTICESIN CRIMINALJUSTICESERIES(Nov.1996),http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/163067.pdf. 3. KERRYMURPHYHEALEY,NAT’LINSTITUTEOFJUSTICE,RESEARCHINACTION,VICTIMANDWITNESS INTIMIDATION:NEWDEVELOPMENTSANDEMERGINGRESPONSES(Oct.1995), https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/witintim.pdf. 4. ELLENPENCE&DENISEENG,PRAXISINTERNATIONAL,THEBLUEPRINTFORSAFETY:ANINTERAGENCY RESPONSETODOMESTICVIOLENCECRIMES(2009),availableat, http://praxisinternational.org/blueprint_materials.aspx. 5. UNITEDNATIONS,OFFICEOFDRUGSANDCRIME,GOODPRACTICESFORTHEPROTECTIONOFWITNESSES INCRIMINALPROCEEDINGSINVOLVINGORGANIZEDCRIME(2008), http://www.unodc.org/documents/organized‐crime/Witness‐protection‐manual‐ Feb08.pdf. ThefollowingSafetyandAccountabilityAuditswerealsoconsulted: 1. DOMESTICVIOLENCEINTERVENTIONPROJECT,LACROSSECOUNTYDOMESTICVIOLENCESAFETYAND ACCOUNTABILITYAUDITFINDINGSANDRECOMMENDATIONS(Oct.2005), http://files.praxisinternational.org/LaCrosseAuditFindings.pdf. 2. BELLINGHAM‐WHATCOMCOUNTYCOMMISSIONAGAINSTDOMESTICVIOLENCE,DOMESTICVIOLENCE SAFETYANDACCOUNTABILITYAUDIT,FINDINGSANDRECOMMENDATIONSFORTHECITYOFBLAINE: POLICE,PROSECUTION,PROBATIONANDCOURTRESPONSES(Oct.2007), http://files.praxisinternational.org/Blaine_Final_Report.pdf. 3. RHONDAMARTINSON&MARIJKABELGUM‐GABBERT,AEQUITAS:THEPROSECUTORS’RESOURCEON VIOLENCEAGAINSTWOMEN,IMPROVINGTHEJUSTICESYSTEMRESPONSETOWITNESSINTIMIDATION, PILOTPROJECTREPORT:KNOXVILLE,TENNESSEE,2011(2012). 4. RHONDAMARTINSON&GRAHAMBARNES,AEQUITAS:THEPROSECUTORS’RESOURCEONVIOLENCE AGAINSTWOMEN,IMPROVINGTHEJUSTICESYSTEMRESPONSETOWITNESSINTIMIDATION,PILOT PROJECTREPORT:DULUTH,MINNESOTA,2011(2012). 5. RHONDAMARTINSON,ELIZABETHWOFFORD,SANDRATIBBETTSMURPHY&MARIJKABELGUM‐ GABBERT,AEQUITAS:THEPROSECUTORS’RESOURCEONVIOLENCEAGAINSTWOMEN,IMPROVINGTHE JUSTICESYSTEMRESPONSETOWITNESSINTIMIDATION,PILOTPROJECTREPORT:SANDIEGO, CALIFORNIA,2011(2012). 35 Æ Æ Æ Æ APPENDICES 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’S JUSTICEPROJECT,MODELPOLICYFORPROSECUTORSANDJUDGESONIMPOSING,MODIFYINGAND LIFTINGCRIMINALNOCONTACTORDERS(2010), http://www.aequitasresource.org/model_policy.pdf. 4. OFFICEFORVICTIMSOFCRIME,ATTORNEYGENERALGUIDELINESFORVICTIMANDWITNESS ASSISTANCE(2011),http://www.justice.gov/olp/pdf/ag_guidelines2012.pdf. 5. JULIEWHITMAN&ROBERTC.DAVIS,THENAT’LCENTERFORVICTIMSOFCRIME,SNITCHESGET STITCHES:YOUTH,GANGS,ANDWITNESSINTIMIDATIONINMASSACHUSETTS(2007), http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/38544/ocn137337215.pdf?sequen ce=1. Backtotext Æ Æ Æ Æ 36 APPENDICES APPENDIXB:PARTIIIRESOURCES Formoreinformationaboutchangemanagementandactionplanning,pleaserefertothefollowing resources: 1. LEILAHGILLIGAN&MADELINEM.CARTER,CENTERFOREFFECTIVEPUBLICPOLICY,STATEJUSTICE INSTITUTE,THEROLEOFFACILITATORSANDSTAFFINSUPPORTINGCOLLABORATIVETEAMS(Jan. 2006),availableathttp://nicic.gov/Library/021203. 2. PAULW.MATTESSICH,MARTAMURRAY‐CLOSE&BARBARAR.MONSEY,COLLABORATION:WHAT MAKESITWORK.AREVIEWOFRESEARCHLITERATUREONFACTORSINFLUENCINGSUCCESSFUL COLLABORATION(AmherstH.WilderFoundation,2ded.2001). 3. AIMEEWICKMAN,BARRYMAHONEY&M.ELAINEBORAKOVE,JUSTICEMANAGEMENTINSTITUTE, IMPROVINGCRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEMPLANNINGANDOPERATIONS:CHALLENGESFORLOCAL GOVERNMENTSANDCRIMINALJUSTICECOORDINATINGCOUNCILS(2011), https://www.bja.gov/Publications/CJCCWhitePaperExecSummary.pdf. 4. SHELLEY,WISEMAN,MATTHEWCHINMAN,PATRICIAA.EBENER,SARAHHUNTER,PAMELAIMM, ABRAHAMWANDERSMAN,GETTINGTOOUTCOMES™:10STEPSFORACHIEVINGRESULTS‐BASED ACCOUNTABILITY(RANDCorporation2007). Backtotext 37 Æ Æ Æ Æ APPENDICES APPENDIXC.RUBRICTOASSESSOPERATIONALKNOWLEDGEOFVICTIMANDWITNESSSAFETYAMONGCRIMINALJUSTICEPRACTITIONERS Demonstrates knowledgeofwhat witnessintimidationis, itsvariousforms,and howitimpedeshis/her work Æ Æ Æ Æ 1 (Low) Cannotexplainwhat witnessintimidationis, examplesofovertand implicitintimidation, anditsspecificimpact onhis/herwork. 2 Defineswitness intimidationand providessomeexamples ofovertandimplicit intimidation.Maynotbe abletoprovideafull understandingofthe impactonhis/herwork andthecriminaljustice system. 38 3 Understandswitness intimidationtactics,both overtandimplicit,that aremostcommonlyused acrossavarietyofcases (e.g.domesticviolence, gang).Explainsthe specificimpactof intimidationonhis/her workintermsof obstructionofjustice andobstaclestopublic safety. 4 (High) Assessesandrecognizes evidenceofpresentand pastintimidationwhen interviewingvictimsor witnesses.Explainsthe specificimpactof intimidationonhis/her workintermsof obstructionofjustice andobstaclestopublic safety. APPENDICES 1 (Low) 2 3 Assessvulnerabilityofa witnessorvictimto intimidationusing objectivetoolsandbest practicesafetyresponses ineachcase Doesnotaskquestions orinvestigatewhether intimidationistaking place. Askssomequestions aboutintimidationwhen speakingwithvictims andwitnesses.May makesomejudgment aboutriskoffuture intimidationbasedon professionalexperience. Asksquestionsabout pastintimidationand otherbehaviorsby allegedperpetrator whenspeakingwith victimsandwitnesses. Makesjudgmentabout riskoffuture intimidationbasedon professionalexperience andtraining.Takes differentialsafety measuresbasedonthe perceivedlevelofrisk. Adviseandeducate victimsandwitnesses abouthowtorecognize, report,andprotect themselvesagainst intimidation Doesnotregularly discussintimidation withvictimsand witnesses. Inconsistentlydiscusses intimidationwith victimsandwitnesses. Providesvictimsand witnesseswithliterature oraccesstoresourceson intimidationattheonset ofcriminalcases,upon request`. 39 4 (High) Usesa structured protocolorobjective assessmenttoolto(1) uncoverintimidation whenspeakingwith victimsandwitnesses and(2)determineriskof futureintimidation. Professionaljudgment continuestoinform actionsandenhancesthe findingsfromthe structuredprotocol underspecific conditions.Takes differential,bestpractice safetymeasuresbased ontheperceivedlevelof risk. Proactivelyreachesout tovictimsandwitnesses aboutintimidation. Literatureandresources providedregularlyat onsetofcases. Æ Æ Æ Æ APPENDICES Æ 2 3 Makemeaningful referralstoservicesfor victimsandwitnesses whentheyrequest assistance Doesnotofferassistance towitnessesorvictims. Providesvictimsand witnesseswithanumber tocallforassistanceor withstandardliterature withresources. Engagesindialoguewith victimsandwitnesses abouttheassistancethey needanddirectsthemto specificresources. Workwithvictimsand witnessestobuilda prosecutablecaseof intimidation Doesnotdocument informationabout intimidation.Perceives noroleinprosecutionor thatprosecutorsdonot chargeintimidationwith anyregularity. Documentssome informationabout intimidationasit happens.Doesnotshare informationwith prosecutionunless requested.Maynot perceiveprosecutionas involvedincharging intimidationatthis stage. Documentskey informationabout intimidationaccording toastandardprotocol developedwith prosecutioninmind. Activelyseeksout informationfromvictims andwitnessesabout intimidationwhen interactingwiththem. Æ Æ 1 (Low) Æ 40 4 (High) Individualizesreferrals toresourcestotheneeds ofeachvictimorwitness andfollowsuptoensure theyhaveconnected withtheappropriate services.Troubleshoots referralsasnecessary. Proactivelyadvises victimsandwitnesses aboutprosecutionof intimidationandwhat informationisimportant tothesuccessofthose cases.Documentskey informationabout intimidationaccording toastandardprotocol. Activelyandregularly seeksoutinformation fromvictimsand witnessesabout intimidationwhen interactingwiththem. APPENDICES 1 (Low) 2 3 Adjusthis/herownwork Treatsallvictimsand strategiestominimize witnessesthesameway. exposureand opportunitiesfor intimidationamong victimsandwitnesses Makesadjustmentsto interactionwithvictims andwitnessesbasedon theirdisclosureof intimidationorother safetyrisk(e.g.,conduct interviewsinalternative areas,change questioningtactics, providesafety information surreptitiously). Assessesthe risklevelof victimsandwitnesses andusesbestpracticeto adjustworkstrategiesto minimizerisk. Demonstrate understandingofhow his/herworkfitsintoa broadercoordinated responsetopromote witnessandvictim safety Understandsthesystem approachtovictimand witnesssafetybutnot his/herroleinthat process.Maynotbelieve thesystemapproachis adequate. Explainsthatvictimand witnesssafetyare prioritiesforthe criminaljusticesystem andisabletodescribe someofthemajor systemicresponses. Articulateshowhis/her ownworkandthatof his/hercolleagues contributestosafety goals. Isnotawareofwhatthe criminaljusticesystem approachtovictimand witnesssafetyisor believestheapproachis weakorfailing Backtotext 4 (High) Assessestherisklevelof victimsandwitnesses andusesbestpracticeto adjustworkstrategiesto minimizerisk.Problem‐ solves(individuallyor collaborativelywith alliedprofessionals) withthevictimor witnesstoidentifynovel orindividualized strategiestoensure safety. Explainsthatvictimand witnesssafetyare prioritiesforthe criminaljusticesystem andisabletodescribe themajorsystemic responses.Articulates howhis/herownwork andthatofhis/her colleaguescontributesto safetygoals.Describes ongoingeffortsto coordinateeffortsacross stakeholdersinthe system. 41 Æ Æ Æ Æ APPENDICES APPENDIXD.INDICATORSOFREADINESSTOCHANGE35 MajorIndicators 1. Communityandorganizational climatethatfacilitateschange 2. Currentattitudesandefforts towardvictimandwitness safety 3. Commitmenttochange 4. Capacitytoimplementchange AdditionalIndicators a. b. c. d. e. Communityclimate:Thedegreetowhichthebroadercommunityis supportiveofthecriminaljusticesystemanditseffortstopromote victim/witnesssafety Currentawareness:Theextenttowhichstakeholdersknowabout thecausesoftheproblem,consequences,andhowitimpactstheir agenciesororganizations Currentvalues:Therelativeworthorimportancethatstakeholders andthebroadercommunityplaceonwitnesssafety Currentefforts:Thewitnesssafetyeffortsthatarealreadyunderway orunderseriousconsideration f. Hopeforchange:Thebeliefamongstakeholdersthatthecriminal justicesystemcanchangeandimprovevictimandwitnesssafety h. Commitmenttochange:Theextenttowhichleadership(e.g.,agency heads,chiefexecutives)iscommittedtoandsupportsenhanced witnesssafetyefforts g. i. j. k. l. Backtotext Organizationalclimate:Thedegreetowhichcurrentsystem conditionsareorientedtoidentifyingintimidationandensuring victim/witnesssafety Needforchange:Theextenttowhichstakeholdersandthe communityfeelthattherearelegitimatereasonsandaneedfor enhancedwitnesssafetyefforts Relationalcapacity:Relationshipsthatarenecessaryforchangeare inplaceandorientedtowardchange(e.g.,socialties,community attachment,andstakeholderinvolvement) Collectiveefficacy:Thebeliefinone’sownortheworkgroup’s capacitytoeffectivelyaccomplishataskortoengageinfuture changeefforts Leadership:Theextenttowhichleadersaresupportiveofenhanced witnesssafetyefforts;theextenttowhichleadershipiseffective Resources:Thelocalresources(people,time,money,andspace) availabletosupportwitnesssafetyefforts m. Skillsandknowledge:Theextenttowhichstakeholderscollectively havetheskillsnecessarytoimplementinnovativeefforts(e.g., adaptability,evaluation,technical,researchanddatadissemination, culturalcompetency,andtraining) 35AdaptedfromShielaF.Castañeda,JessicaHolscher,ManpreetK.Mumman,HugoSalgado,KatherineB.Keir,PennieG. Foster‐Fishman,GregoryA.Talavera,DimensionsofCommunityandOrganizationalReadinessforChange,6PROGRESSIN COMMUNITYHEALTHPARTNERSHIPS:RESEARCH,EDUCATION,ANDACTION,219‐26(2012). Æ Æ Æ Æ 42 APPENDICES APPENDIXE.PROTOCOLFORASSESSINGANDQUANTIFYING“OPPORTUNITIESFORINTIMIDATION” Stageincriminal justicecontinuum Opportunitiesforintimidation 1 2 Community‐based,community‐levelintimidation. Residents aregenerallyreluctanttoreportcrimesorcooperatewith lawenforcement,becausetheyfearretaliationorbecause theyfearhostilityfromcommunitymembers. Four‐pointscale:1‐Neverhappens,2‐Sometimeshappens,3‐ Oftenhappens,4‐Alwayshappens Incidentoccurs Incidentreportedto police Policeinitialresponse Policeinvestigation (initial/pre‐charge) Community‐based,individual‐levelintimidation. Individual victimsarereluctanttoreportcrimesorcooperatewith lawenforcementbecausetheyfearretaliationorhostility fromcommunitymembers. Theidentitiesofinformantsandreportersofcrimearenot keptconfidentialorotherwiseprotectedadequatelyfrom potentialintimidators Interviewsduringfirstresponseandduringinvestigation takeplaceinpublicareasorareotherwisenotkept confidential(e.g.,uniformedpolicevisitingwitnesses’ homes) Interviewswithvictimstakeplaceinpresenceofalleged perpetrators Victimsandwitnessesarenotinformedaboutthethreatof intimidationandwhattheycandoaboutit Ongoinginterviewsarenotconductedconfidentiallyorin safeplaces Victimsandwitnessesarenotprovidedwithresources/ peopletheycanaccesswhentheyneedhelp Police/prosecutor investigation (ongoing/during adjudication) Signsofexistingorpotentialintimidationarenot recognizedorrecordedbyfirstresponders;assessmentof safetyrisknotconducted Ongoingre‐assessmentofrisknottakingplace Victimsandwitnessesdonotreceivepro‐active communication(e.g.,frompolice,fromvictimservices)to checkinonneedsandsafety 43 4 Mechanismstoreportcrimedonotprovidesufficient avenuesforanonymityorprotectionofidentity Signsofexistingorpotentialintimidationarenot recognizedorrecordedby911calltakers;instructionfor particularcareregardingtheidentityofinformantsnot communicatedtofirstresponders 3 Æ Æ Æ Æ APPENDICES Stageincriminal justicecontinuum Opportunitiesforintimidation 1 2 Littleornoongoingcontactwithappropriatecriminal justicesystemprofessionals(e.g.,police,prosecutors, victimservices)abouttheirneedsandsafetyconcerns Four‐pointscale:1‐Neverhappens,2‐Sometimeshappens,3‐ Oftenhappens,4‐Alwayshappens Arrest Jailhold/pretrial detention Firstappearance/ arraignment Pretrialproceedings Trial Sentencing Supervision/ corrections Æ Æ Æ Æ Callsandothercommunicationfromjailarenotmonitored adequately Detaineescircumventexistingcontrols,suchasblocked callsorPINsformakingcalls,inordertocontactvictims andwitnessesortoinstructfamiliesandfriendstodoso Littleornoongoingcontactwithappropriatecriminal justicesystemprofessionals(e.g.,police,prosecutors, victimservices)abouttheirneedsandsafetyconcerns Ifmonitored,informationthatmightbeusedtoprosecute intimidationortotakesomeotheractionisnotshared withappropriateparties Detaineeswhoaredefendantsarenotadequately separatedfromdetaineeswhoarevictimsorwitnessesand whoalsohappentobedetained Appearancesincourtinclude longperiodsofwaitingin publicspaces,creatingampleopportunityfordefendants, victimsandwitnessestointeract Victimsandwitnesses arenotadequatelyseparatedfrom defendantsincourtroomsduringactualhearings Informationaboutoffenderreleasestatusisnotprovided orprovidedtoolatetobeuseful Victimsandwitnesses arenotvisuallyorphysically separatedfromdefendantsinpublicspacesofthe courthouse Intimidatingbehavior inthecourthouseandincourtrooms isnotidentifiedorpoliced Whenintimidating behaviorsareidentified,theyarenot documentedorsharedwithothers(e.g.,prosecutors, police) Littletonosafetyplanningtakesplaceinhigh‐riskcases withvictimsandwitnesses Informationaboutthereleasestatusofoffendersisnot providedorprovidedtoolatetobeuseful 44 3 4 APPENDICES Stageincriminal justicecontinuum Opportunitiesforintimidation 1 2 Victimsandwitnessesarenotprovidedwithresources/ peopletheycanaccesswhentheyneedhelp Victimorwitnesswishesarenotconsideredinthe issuanceofno‐contactorders,whichmayplacethemat greaterrisk Conditionsarenotuniformlyenforced;consequencesare notswiftandcertain Four‐pointscale:1‐Neverhappens,2‐Sometimeshappens,3‐ Oftenhappens,4‐Alwayshappens Victimsandwitnessesdonotreceivepro‐active communication(e.g.,frompolice,fromvictimservices)to checkonneedsandsafety No‐contactorder issued Throughoutthe criminaljustice continuum Conditionsofno‐contactordersarenot specific(e.g.,use vaguetermssuchas“mayhavereasonablevisitationswith thechildren”)orcomprehensiveenough(e.g.,donot accountforsocialmediacontact) Patternsofintimidatingbehaviorarenottrackedbetween stagesintheprocessandamongactorsinvolvedinacase Informationabouthistoryorescalationofintimidating behaviorbycaseorbyindividualisnotreadilyavailableto criminaljusticeprofessionals 4 Termsandconditionsofordersnotclearlycommunicated throughoutthecriminaljusticesystem(e.g.,tojails) Victimsandwitnessesdonotclearlyunderstandwhat recoursetheyhavewhenno‐contactordersareviolatedor whatroletheycanplayintheirownsafety 3 45 Æ Æ Æ Æ APPENDICES APPENDIXF.INFORMATION‐GATHERINGSTRATEGIESFORDETERMININGSYSTEMALIGNMENTTOTHE BESTPRACTICEPRINCIPLES 1 2 Principle Planandimplementcoordinatedcriminal justiceresponsestovictimandwitness intimidationthatspanfromthestageof reportingtoafterthereleaseofthe offender. Information GatheringStrategies Usecommunity‐basedapproachesto buildtrustamongneighborhood residentsandencouragereportingof informationaboutcrimes,including intimidation. 3 Educatevictimsandwitnessesabout witnessintimidation. 4 5 Æ Æ Æ Equipjusticesystemleadershipandstaff withanoperationalknowledgeof intimidationandsafety. Buildtrustwithindividualvictimsand witnessesbymaintainingconsistent teamsofcriminaljusticeactorswho workwiththemandrespondholistically totheirneeds Æ 46 Identifycross‐systemplanninggroups withthecapacitytoadvancewitness safetyefforts Documentandmapcurrentresponses Surveycourthousevisitorsabouttheir awarenessofsafetyefforts Identifycommunity‐based programmingandinitiativesinplaceor underconsideration Surveylawenforcementorprosecutors whomaybeinvolvedintheseinitiatives aboutthenatureandsuccessofthis work Surveycommunitymembersabout theseefforts Identifyprintmaterialsandother resourcesthatareusedtoeducate victimsandwitnessesaboutwitness intimidation Identifytrainingprogramsthatarein placeandreviewtheircurricula Determinenumberofpeoplereached bythesestrategies Identifytrainingprogramsfor leadershipandstaffandreview curriculum Surveyleadershipandstaffto determinelevelofoperational knowledge Reviewpoliciesandprocedures regardingpersonnelassignedtowork oncasesandspecificallytoworkwith victimsandwitnesses Surveyjusticeprofessionalsandvictims andwitnessesabouttheirexperiences APPENDICES 6 Principle Useobjectiveassessmentsandinput fromvictimsandwitnessestodetermine riskofandvulnerabilitytointimidation andusethosedatatotargetwitness safetyefforts. Information GatheringStrategies 7 Createinformation‐sharingpoliciesthat linkcriminaljusticeactorsandallow themtoidentifypatternsofbehaviorand possibleintimidationinindividualcases. 8 9 Makeallreasonableeffortstominimize contactbetweenvictims/witnessesand defendantsthroughoutthecriminal justiceprocess. Createasafespaceintheircourthouses. 47 Documentwhattools(informaland formal)justiceprofessionalsuseto assessrisk Identifyfactorsconsideredintheserisk assessments Identifywhenandwhereinthesystem theseassessmentstakeplace Documenthowinformationfromthese assessmentsisusedtodefineresponses Identifytheinformationsystemsused byeachofthestakeholdersinthe criminaljusticesystem Documenttheinteroperabilityofthese systems Determinethecapacityofeachsystem todocumentandtrackintimidation Determinetheuseofthesesystemsto documentandtrackintimidation Identifyothersourcesofinformation aboutreportsofintimidationandhow theyareused Identifypoliciesandproceduresthat separatetheseparties Observecurrentpracticesinthe courthouse Surveyvictimsandwitnessesabout theirexperienceswheninterviewedby policeorprosecutors,whenincourt, andgenerallywheninthecommunity Observecurrentpracticesinthe courthouse Reviewpoliciesandspeakwithstaff Surveyvictimsandwitnessesabout theirexperienceswhenvisitingcourt Identifystrategiestopreventand respondtointimidatingbehaviorinthe courthouse Æ Æ Æ Æ APPENDICES Principle 10 Trackprogressandoutcomesanduse thosedatatoinformsystem improvement. Information GatheringStrategies Backtotext Æ Æ Æ Æ 48 Identifymeasurableprogressand outcomeindicatorsusedbyleadership toassesssuccessofsafetyefforts Documenthowoftenthesedataare reviewedandusedbyleadershipto tweakprogramming Documenthowtheseindicatorsshape whatdataarecollectedandreportedin informationsystems Documenthowindividualsoragencies areheldaccountablewhenthedata revealaproblem APPENDICES APPENDIXG.RUBRICTODETERMINEADHERENCETOBESTPRACTICEPRINCIPLES 1 1 (Low) 2 3 4 (High) Aformalworkgroupof leadershipfromeach keystakeholdergroup inthecriminaljustice systemisinplaceand meetsregularlyto discussanddecide substantiveissues.The groupincludes,asat leastonemajorpriority, promotingwitness safety.Thegroup includes representativesfrom lawenforcement, prosecution,the judiciaryandcourts, pretrialservices,court security,jailsand corrections,probation, etc. Planandimplementhighlyvisibleandcoordinatedcriminaljustice responsestovictimandwitnessintimidationthatspanfromthe stageofreportingtoafterthereleaseoftheoffender. Effectivecross‐system coordinatedresponse teamfocusedon witnesssafety Noformalorinformal workgroupsthatinclude leadersfromacrossthe justicesystemisinplace. Theremaybeoccasional meetingsthatbring togethertheseindividuals, butthesemeetingsdonot includesubstantivepolicy discussionordecision‐ making. Oneormoreworking groupsexistthroughout thejusticesystem,which mayinclude representativesfroma numberofstakeholder groups.Thesegroupsare limitedinscope(e.g.,toa specificstageofthe justicesystem)but nonetheless,function effectivelytobring togetherdiverseinterests andtoimplement complexresponsesand interventions.Nosuch group,however,hashad system‐widesuccess. Afunctioningworking groupwithasystems focusiscurrentlyin placeorhassucceeded inthepast.Thisgroup maybeinformalor formal,butdoesmeet periodically.The workinggroupmay notbecompletely representativeofall systemstakeholders. Ithasnotwholly focusedonwitness safetybuthas succeededinother areas. Continuumof coordinatedresponses acrossthesystemand risklevels Thecriminaljustice systemdoesnothaveany witnesssafetyprogramsor theyremainlargely unused.Victimsand witnessesarenot Thecriminaljustice systemhassomewitness safetyprogrammingin placeatcertainstages, suchasduring adjudicationoratthejail. Thecriminaljustice systemhasanarrayof witnesssafety responsesfromarrest throughadjudication, sentencing,and 49 Thecriminaljustice systemhasa coordinatedsystemof witnesssafety responsesfromarrest throughadjudication, Æ Æ Æ Æ APPENDICES 1 (Low) systematicallyorreliably affordedprotectiveand supportserviceswhen requested. Highvisibilityof Therearenospecial commitmenttowitness effortstocommunicate safety witnesssafetyasapriority ofthecriminaljustice system.Stakeholdersdo notgenerallydiscuss witnesssafetymeasures withwitnessandvictims andmaynotbeawareof thoseresponses themselves.Witness safetyisnotmentionedin literatureorsignagefor thepublic. Æ Æ Æ Æ 2 Nonetheless,majorgaps inwitnesssafetypersist inthecommunityorat keystagesofacriminal case.Safetyresponses arenotconsistently providedtovictimsand witnessesbasedon identifiedsafetyrisk. Therearesomeeffortsto communicatewitness safetyasapriorityofthe criminaljusticesystem. Witnesssafetymaybe mentionedinliteratureor signageforthepublic. However,stakeholdersdo notgenerallydiscuss witnesssafetymeasures withwitnessandvictims andmaynotconsistently beawareofthose responsesthemselves. 50 3 corrections.However, theseeffortsarenot well‐coordinatedand communicationis inconsistent.Someof theseresponsesmay beusedbasedon identifiedsafetyrisk. Victimandwitness safetyare communicatedasa priorityofthecriminal justicesystem. Witnesssafetyfeatures prominentlyin literatureorsignage forthepublic. However,thereare stillgapsin communicatingsafety effortsandservicesto victimsandwitnesses. Effortsmaybe underwaytoenhance safetyandthat initiativemaybehighly visible. 4 (High) sentencing,and corrections.These responsesare strategicallybasedon theidentifiedrisksand needsofvictimsand witnesses.The responsesarealigned withbestpractice principles. Keystakeholdersinthe criminaljusticesystem broadcastits commitmenttowitness safety.Whethera memberofthepublic victimorwitnessina criminalmatter,any personinteractingwith lawenforcement, courts,prosecutors,or detentionfacilitiesis remindedofthekey importanceofwitness safety.Witnesssafety measuresarevisible partsofcriminalcases andcourtsecurityis clearlyfocusedon preventingintimidating behavior. APPENDICES 1 (Low) 2 3 4 (High) Therearenowitness safetyprogramsinplacein thecommunity.Neither communitypolicingnor communityprosecution strategiesareused. Therearesomeeffortsto publicizewitnesssafety effortstocommunities. Theseeffortsmaynotbe focusedonspecific,at‐ riskcommunities. Communitymembers maystillnotbe consistentlyawareof thesesafetyefforts. Communitypolicing and/orcommunity prosecutionstrategies areinplaceandmay haveafocuson witnesssafety. Specific,at‐risk communitiesare targeted.However, residentsarenot consistentlyawareof andreceptiveto witness/victimsafety efforts. Effortstopromote victimandwitness safetyareinplaceinthe community. Communitypolicing and/orcommunity prosecutionstrategies arecenterpiecesofthis approach.At‐risk communitiesare targetedandresidents notinvolvedinthe justicesystemarestill awareofandreceptive toitssafetymessages andeffortsinthe community. Victimsandwitnesses maybeprovided informationabout intimidationandsafetyin certaincases.This informationmaynotbe comprehensiveandmay belargelyintheformof printmaterials.More thoroughinformation Formalandconsistent educationofat‐risk victimsandwitnesses isinplaceandfocuses onprovidingvictims andwitnesseswiththe toolstoidentify intimidation,anticipate whenitmaytakeplace, preventit,andtake Formalandconsistent educationofat‐risk victimsandwitnessesis inplaceandfocuseson providingtoolsto identifyintimidation, anticipatewhenitmay takeplace,preventit andtakeactionifitdoes happen.Inaddition, 2 Usecommunity‐basedapproachestobuildtrustamongneighborhoodresidentsandencouragereportingofinformationabout crimes,includingintimidation. 3 Educatevictimsandwitnessesaboutwitnessintimidation. Nospecializededucation is providedtowitnesses/ victimsregarding intimidationandsafety. 51 Æ Æ Æ Æ APPENDICES 4 1 (Low) 2 maybeprovidedif victims/witnesses identifythemselvesa needforservices. 3 actionifitdoes happen.Follow‐up discussionstoidentify andproblem‐solve intimidationmayoccur butarenotconsistent. Equipcriminaljusticeleadershipandstaffwithanoperationalknowledgeofintimidationandsafety. Detailforthissectionof therubrichasbeen presentedin“Table2. RubrictoAssess OperationalKnowledge ofVictimandWitness SafetyAmongCriminal JusticePractitioners”. 4 (High) justicesystem staff interactingwithvictims andwitnesses throughoutthesystem regularlyengagein trustingconversations tohelpidentifyand problem‐solve intimidation.Victims andwitnessesknow whenandwheretogo forhelpwhentheir safetyisthreatened. Criminaljustice practitionersgenerally showevidenceofhigh performancefor0‐1ofthe 7domainsinthe“Rubric toAssessOperational KnowledgeofVictimand WitnessSafety”. Criminaljustice practitionersgenerally showevidenceofhigh performancefor2‐3of the7domainsinthe “RubrictoAssess OperationalKnowledgeof VictimandWitness Safety”. Criminaljustice practitionersgenerally showevidenceofhigh performancefor4‐5of the7domainsinthe “RubrictoAssess Operational KnowledgeofVictim andWitnessSafety”. Criminaljustice practitionersgenerally showevidenceofhigh performancefor6‐7of the7domainsinthe “RubrictoAssess OperationalKnowledge ofVictimandWitness Safety”. Nospecialeffortsarein placetominimizethe changesinpersonnel workingwithvictimsand witnesses.Transitions Somemeasuresarein placetominimizechanges inpersonnelworking withvictimsand witnesses.Vertical Formalpoliciesand infrastructure minimizethenumber ofdifferentpeople victims/witnesses Formalpoliciesand infrastructureminimize thenumberofdifferent people victims/witnessesmust 5 Buildtrustwithindividualvictimsandwitnessesbymaintainingconsistentteamsofcriminaljusticeactorswhoworkwiththemand byrespondingholisticallytotheirneeds. Æ Æ Æ Æ 52 APPENDICES 1 (Low) acrossstaffarecommon, andtheremaybe institutionalpolicies,such aslawenforcementshift changesorhorizontal representationamong prosecution,that necessitatethese“hand offs”. 2 prosecution isinplaceat theprosecutor’soffice andsimilarmeasuresmay beinplaceinlaw enforcement.Thesekinds ofmeasuresarenot consistentacrossthe system. 3 mustinteractwithin thecriminaljustice system.Theycan generallyexpectto workwiththesame lawenforcement professionals, prosecutors,and advocates. Communication betweensystemstaff andvictims/witnesses isinconsistent.Victims andwitnessesarenot consistentlyprovided timelyandaccurate informationabout majorcaseevents, especiallyrelease status. 4 (High) interactwithinthe criminaljusticesystem. Theycangenerally expecttoworkwiththe samelawenforcement professionals, prosecutors,and advocates. Communication betweensystemstaff andvictims/witnesses isfrequentandregular. Itfocusesonsafety, neededservices,and clarificationofthe investigationor adjudicationprocesses. Victimsandwitnesses areprovidedtimelyand accurateinformation aboutmajorcase events,especially releasestatus. 6 Useobjectiveassessmentsandinputfromvictimsandwitnessestodetermineriskofandvulnerabilitytointimidationandusethose datatotargetwitnesssafetyefforts. Noformalorinformal assessmentsofsafetyrisk areconductedwithvictims andwitnesses. Criminaljustice professionalsatcertain stagesofthecriminal justicecontinuum generallyaskquestionsof victimsandwitnesses 53 Criminaljustice professionals throughoutthesystem usecommonprotocols toaskquestionsthat helpthemtomake Validatedthreat assessmentsareused acrossthecriminal justicecontinuumwith victimsandwitnesses todeterminetheirrisk Æ Æ Æ Æ APPENDICES 1 (Low) 2 thatallowthemtomakea judgmentaboutsafety risk.These determinationsarebased onprofessional experience.This informationisused, perhapsinconsistently,to definesafetyplansfor victimsandwitnesses. 3 judgments aboutsafety risk.These determinationsare basedonprofessional experience.This informationisusedto definesafetyplansfor victimsandwitnesses. Plansmaybe underwaytovalidate theseprotocolsand converttheminto formalassessments. 4 (High) levels.These toolsmay befocusedonspecific typesofthreatsor cases,suchasdomestic violence.Nonetheless, allat‐riskvictimsand witnessesareassessed. Theseassessments happenseveraltimes throughoutthelifeofa casetogaugechangesin threatlevelsand responsesforhigh‐risk individualsareswift andappropriate. 7 Createinformation‐sharingpoliciesthatlinkcriminaljusticeactorsandallowthemtoidentifypatternsofbehaviorandpossible intimidationinindividualcases. Æ Æ Æ Therearenosystemsin placeallowingacriminal justiceprofessionalto identifypatternsof intimidationovertime associatedwithan individual(eitherasthe intimidatoror intimidated). Æ Someinformation systemscapturereports ofintimidationinways thataresearchableor trackable.Theirusemay beinconsistent.These systemsallowfor searcheswithinoneor morepartsofthecriminal justicecontinuum,butare notintegratedandnot readilyavailableto professionalsthroughout thesystem. 54 Informationsystems throughoutthe criminaljustice continuumcapture reportsofintimidation inwaysthatare searchableor trackable.Theiruse maybeinconsistent. Withsomeeffort,these systemshavebeen usedtobuildaprofile ofintimidating behaviorovertime Informationsystems areinplacethat(1) identifyanddocument witnessintimidation and(2)providesystem stakeholderswith seamlessaccessto historicalcomplaintsby oraboutthesame people.Staffcansee intimidationcomplaints overtimeforasingle individualandassess theescalationofa APPENDICES 1 (Low) 2 3 relatedtoaspecific case. 4 (High) threat.Thesedataalso followvictims, witnesses,and defendantsthroughout thecaseprocess.This informationsystemmay involveamixtureof high‐andlow‐tech strategies,butthe informationdoesflow seamlesslyandrapidly throughoutthesystem. 8 Makeallreasonableeffortstominimizecontactbetweenvictims/witnessesanddefendants/offendersthroughoutthecriminal justicesystem. Nospecializedeffortsare inplacetoseparate victims/witnessesfrom offendersatanystageof thecriminaljustice continuum.No‐contact ordersarerarelyusedor generallynotenforced. Specializedeffortsto separatevictims/ witnessesfrom defendants/offenders existatsomestagesofthe criminaljustice continuum(e.g., investigation).No‐ contactordersareused readily,butenforcement isnotconsistent. 55 Specializedeffortsto separatevictims/ witnessesfrom defendants/offenders existatallstagesofthe criminaljustice continuum(e.g., investigation). However,theymaynot beapplied consistently.No‐ contactordersare amonganumberof community‐based safetystrategies.They maybeusedregularly butnotconsistently. Throughoutthe criminaljustice continuum,victims/ witnessesareinsulated fromoffendersaspart ofthewitnesssafety response.This separationincludes conventionalefforts suchasseparation duringinvestigation andinterviews, monitoring communicationswhen thepotential intimidatorisdetained, physicalseparationin Æ Æ Æ Æ APPENDICES 1 (Low) 2 3 Courthouseshave standardsecurity measuresinplace.Victims andwitnessesarenot systematicallyseparated andtherearenotargeted measuresinplaceto preventintimidation. Securityinthecourthouse mayperiodicallyintervene incasesofovert intimidation. Courthouseshave standardsecurity measuresinplace.There aresomeadditional measuresinplaceto elevatevictimand witnessprotectioninhigh riskcases.Ifrequestedby individualvictimsor witnessesortheir advocates,courtsecurity mayfocusattentionon specificindividuals.The visitingpublicisnot generallyawareofsafety measuresinplace. Allcourthouseareas areregularly monitoredfor intimidatingbehavior. Theremaybesome signageorother indicationofthe consequencesto intimidation. Responsesto intimidationarenot trackedconsistentlyby perpetratororvictim/ witness. 9 Createasafespaceintheircourthouses. Æ Æ Æ Æ 56 4 (High) courthousesand detentionfacilities, availabilityofshort‐ andlong‐term relocation,andissuance ofno‐contactorders.In addition,innovativeand creativeapproaches haveevolvedthat continuetopromote appropriateseparation asaneffectivesafety strategy. Courthouses,including courtrooms,hallways, entrances,andgrounds, aregenerallyfreefrom threats–bothovert andimplicit.Visitorsto thecourthouse generallyfeelsafeand areawareofsomeof thesafetymechanisms inaction.Theyalso understandthe penaltiesfor intimidation.Key strategiesinclude:(1) signageandliterature settinggroundrulesfor APPENDICES 1 (Low) 2 3 10 Trackprogressandoutcomesandusethosedatatoinformsystemimprovement. Thecriminaljustice systemdoesnot systematicallydocument theprevalenceofwitness intimidation.The infrastructuretocollect suchdatamaynotbein placeormayfragmented. Thecriminaljustice systemhasbegunto identifyindicatorsofthe prevalenceofwitness intimidation,but comprehensiveprocess andoutcomesarenotyet inplaceorcannoteasily bemeasuredusing currentinformation systems.Availabledatais usedbyacoordinating workgrouptomake decisions,buteffortsto buildbetterinformation systemsarestill underway. 57 Thecriminaljustice systemhasdefined key,quantifiable metricsforsuccessand measuresthoseonan ongoingbasis. Measurementsindicate prevalenceof identifiedintimidation. Theremaybesome qualitativemeasures, suchassurveysand focusgroups.Thedata arereviewedregularly byacoordinating workgroup.Future responsesand improvementsare drivenbythesedata. 4 (High) behaviorandpenalties forintimidation;(2) activeandvisible security,whoidentify, report,andtrack patternsof intimidation;and(3) securewaitingareasfor victimsandwitnesses. Thecriminaljustice systemhasdefinedkey, quantifiablemetricsfor successandmeasures thoseonanongoing basis.Measurement focuseson vulnerabilitiesor opportunitiesfor intimidation,andonthe prevalenceofidentified intimidation.Methods fordatacollectionalso includequalitative measures,suchas surveysofandfocus groupswithvictimsand witnesses.Becauseof theimportanceof community‐based intimidation,the Æ Æ Æ Æ APPENDICES 1 (Low) 2 Backtotext Æ Æ Æ Æ 58 3 4 (High) generalpublicisalso includedinthisongoing analysis.Thedataare reviewedregularlyby thecoordinating workgroup.Future responsesand improvementsare drivenbythesedata. APPENDICES APPENDIXH.SMARTOBJECTIVES36 SMARTOBJECTIVES OneofthemostwellknownmethodsforsettingobjectivesisSMART.Belowwediscusseachof theprinciplesofSMARTobjectivesanddiagnosticquestionstoguidethedevelopmentofthese objectives. Specific Measurable Achievable Realistic Time‐Bound concrete, detailed,and well‐defined quantifiable and comparable feasible, actionable considering resources defined timelines, deadlines Specific:Theobjectiveisconcrete,detailed,focused,andwelldefined.Itisstraightforwardand emphasizesactionandoutcomes. Whatexactlyarewegoingtodo? Whatstrategieswillbeused? Istheobjectivedescribedasactionable? Istheoutcomeclear?Willthisobjectiveleadtothedesiredresults? Achievable:Objectivesneedtobeachievable.Settingreachableobjectivesiscriticalto maintainingmotivationamongallthoseinvolvedinanactionplan.Eventhoughtheyare obtainable,objectivesstillneedtostretchandchallengeateamtobecreative. Canwegetitdoneintheproposedtimeframe? Doweunderstandthelimitationsandconstraints? Isthispossible?Hasanyoneelsedonethissuccessfully? Realistic:Theachievementofanobjectiverequiresresources,suchasskills,money,and equipment,tosupportthetasksrequiredtoachievetheobjective. Dowehavetheresourcesavailabletoachievethisobjective? Doweneedtorevisitprioritiesinotherareastomakethishappen? Isitpossibletoachievethisobjective? Measurable:Measurableobjectivesallowustotracktheresultsofouractions,aswe progresstowardsachievingourgoals.Ifyoucannotmeasureit,youcannotmanageit! Measurementhelpsusknowwhenwehaveachievedourobjective. Howwillweknowthatthechangehasoccurred? Canthesemeasurementsbeobtained? Time‐Bound:Deadlinescreateanimportantsenseofurgencyandencourageaction. Whenwillthisobjectivebeaccomplished? Isthereastateddeadline? Backtotext 36 Æ GeorgeT.Doran,G.T.There'sAS.M.A.R.T.WayToWriteManagement'sGoalsAndObjectives,70MANAGEMENTREVIEW (AMAFORUM)35‐36(1981). 59 Æ Æ Æ AEquitas: The Prosecutors’ Resource on Violence Against Women 1100 H Street NW, Suite 310 Washington, DC 20005 Main | 202-499-0314 Fax | 202-393-1918 www. AEquitasResource.org The Justice Management Institute DC Area Office 1400 North 14th Street Floor 12 Arlington, VA 22209 Main | 720-235-0121 www.JMIJustice.org Authors Franklin Cruz Senior Program Manager T�� R������� JusticeP����������’ Management Institute V������� A������ W���� �� Teresa M. Garvey Attorney Advisor AEquitas: The Prosecutors’ Resource on Violence Against Women 1100 H S����� NW, S���� 310 Acknowledgments W���������, DC 20005 The 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 Main | 202-558-0040 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, Fax | 202-393-1918 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 Attorney, Duluth, Minnesota City Attorney’s Office and Scott Miller, Blueprint Coordinator, Domestic Abuse Intervention Project. We also specially ���.AE������R�������.��� 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 challenge 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 and2013 Policy Manager, Minnesota Coalition AgainstResource Sexual Assault; A. Fisanick, Chief of the Criminal Division, © AEquitas: The Prosecutors’ onChristian Violence Against Women, a project ofU.S. theAttorney’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 Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape. 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; This was supported by Grant No. 2010-MU-BX-K079 the Bureau ofVice-President, Justice Sherylproject Golstein, Program Director, Education, The Harry and Jeanette Weinbergawarded Foundation,by Inc.; Steven Jansen, Association of Prosecuting Attorneys; Wanda Lucibello, Chief of the Special Victims Division in the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office, Kings County District Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Of�ice of Justice Programs, Attorneys Office. The inclusion of individuals here as peer reviewer does not indicate their endorsement of this final product but their contriwhich also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Of�ice of butions were sincerely appreciated. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the SMART Of�ice, and the Of�ice for Victims of This publication the JusticeinManagement Instituteare andthose AEquitas grant 2010-MU-BX-K079, Crime. Pointswas of produced view or by opinions this document ofand thesupported authorsbyand donumber not represent awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or the of�icial position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 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. The information provided in this publication is for educational purposes only and is not intended © 2014 AEquitas: The Prosecutors’ Resource on Violence Against Women, a project of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape and Justice to provide legal advice to any individual or entity. Management Institute 1100 H S����� NW, S���� 310 | W���������, DC 20005 Main | 202-558-0040 Fax | 202-393-1918 ���.AE������R�������.��� Æ Æ Æ Improving Witness Safety and Preventing Witness Intimidation in the Justice System: Benchmarks for Progress Æ Æ Æ Æ
© Copyright 2026 Paperzz