[Senate Hearing 111-578]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-578
FEDERAL EFFORTS TO ADDRESS WITNESS INTIMIDATION AT THE STATE AND LOCAL
LEVEL
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND DRUGS
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JANUARY 8, 2010
__________
Serial No. J-111-69
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
57-937 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN CORNYN, Texas
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
Bruce A. Cohen, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Matt Miner, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware
Hannibal Kemerer, Democratic Chief Counsel
Walt Kuhn, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Wisconsin, prepared statement.................................. 38
Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Pennsylvania................................................... 1
WITNESSES
Canada, Ted, Victims; Advocate, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania....... 13
Clowden Barbara, Victims; Advocate, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania... 10
Coard, Michael, Law Office of Michael Coard, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania................................................... 17
Frei, Richard L., Associator Professor, Community College of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania....................... 23
Ramsey, Charles H., Commissioner, Philadelphia Police Department,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania..................................... 2
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Canada, Ted, Victims; Advocate, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
statement...................................................... 31
Clowden Barbara, Victims; Advocate, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
statement...................................................... 32
Coard, Michael, Law Office of Michael Coard, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, statement........................................ 34
Frei, Richard L., Associator Professor, Community College of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, statement............ 40
Olshan, Marlene L., Chief Executive Officer, Big Brothers Big
Sisters, Southereastern Pennsylvania, statement................ 52
Ramsey, Charles H., Commissioner, Philadelphia Police Department,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, statement.......................... 55
FEDERAL EFFORTS TO ADDRESS WITNESS INTIMIDATION AT THE STATE AND LOCAL
LEVEL
----------
FRIDAY, JANUARY 8, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:40 a.m.,
Constitution Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Hon. Arlen
Specter presiding.
Present: Charles H. Ramsey, Commissioner, Philadelphia
Police Department; Barbara Clowden, Victims' Rights Advocate;
Ted Canada, Victims' Rights Advocate; Michael Coard, Law Office
of Michael Coard; Dr. Richard L. Frei, Community College of
Pennsylvania; and Erica Hines, Public Participant.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Senator Specter. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The
Criminal Law Subcommittee of the U.S. Senate Judiciary
Committee will now proceed with this hearing.
This hearing has been recognized following an extensive
series of articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer, maintaining
major problems in the criminal justice system setting in
Philadelphia. This is a subject which I have worked on for
decades, going back to my days as an Assistant District
Attorney in this city, and then as Philadelphia's District
Attorney for 8 years, from 1966 until 1974, and on the
Judiciary Committee, where I've served since my election to the
Senate in 1980, I've been concerned about the problems of
violent crime nationally, and with special emphasis on the
problems in my hometown of Philadelphia.
Our hearing today is going to take up the issue of witness
intimidation, the question of how to protect witnesses.
Criminal trials cannot proceed unless there are witnesses, and
if witnesses are subject to intimidation or subject to the
ultimate elimination, through murder, obviously criminal cases
cannot go forward.
Now, this is one problem of a whole series of problems, and
we will consider having additional hearings depending on
circumstances. I regret that we were unable to have this
hearing when it was first scheduled, but the Senate schedule,
as you may know, during December was extended because of
legislation on comprehensive health care reform. Yesterday, I
just returned from a trip overseas where I visited Afghanistan,
and that has required the setting of the hearing for today.
We have a distinguished array of witnesses. We have the
distinguished Philadelphia police commissioner, who came to
this position after 29 years of service on the Chicago Police
Department, including being commissioner, and then commissioner
in Washington, DC, and brought out of retirement to serve in
Philadelphia.
We have two witnesses, Ms. Barbara Clowden and Mr. Ted
Canada, who have lost children as a result of murders because
they were prospective witnesses. We have a distinguished
Philadelphia practicing attorney, Michael Coard, who has a
little different perspective, who's had some comments of a
critical nature--entitled to those views--on the Inquirer
series.
And we have Professor Richard Frei from the Philadelphia
Community College, who has done some scientific research on the
issue of the culture of snitching or ratting. Times have
changed significantly since I was District Attorney here, lots
of problems. But to have an entire culture is different, and
we're going to be looking at this issue from quite a number of
perspectives.
I want to especially thank the police commissioner for
coming. We've had a change of schedule a couple of times, but
he knows what schedule changes are like; he has to change his
all the time depending on what happens in his very, very
complicated job.
Well, thank you for joining us, Commissioner Ramsey. The
floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF POLICE COMMISSIONER CHARLES H. RAMSEY,
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA POLICE DEPARTMENT
Commissioner Ramsey. Thank you, and good morning, Chairman
Specter, invited speakers, and guests. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today and discuss how the
Federal Government can assist local and State law enforcement
agencies in preventing, and responding to, witness
intimidation.
As police commissioner for the city of Philadelphia and the
former chief of police for the Metropolitan Police Department
in the District of Columbia for nearly 9 years, I can't
overstate the importance of collaboration between the Federal
Government and local law enforcement.
What the recent Philadelphia Inquirer series on the
criminal justice system in our city so clearly demonstrated is
that our system is, indeed, dysfunctional. Together, we work to
fight crime and make our communities safer. Separately, we
often have competing goals and metrics of success, operating
different procedures and responding to different political
pressures. There is no simple solution to fixing a system-wide
problem.
The Inquirer pointed out that the conviction rate for
felony crime in Philadelphia is the lowest in the Nation.
Raising the conviction rate should not be viewed, however, as
the cure-all for a broken system, nor should any statistic be
interpreted as an indicator of its success or failure. Reducing
systemic dysfunction and placing blame squarely with any single
agency does a disservice to us all.
In a New York Times editorial entitled ``Criminal Justice
Cube,'' published on December 9, 1981, the board wrote the
following: ``It's long been understood that criminal justice is
a Rubik's Cube. What the police do will affect what happens in
court, which will affect what happens in the jails and prisons.
You can't hope to deal with crime better by focusing on any
single part any more than you can solve the Cube by
concentrating on one square at a time.''
This editorial was published nearly 30 years ago in
response to the dysfunction that marked the criminal justice
system in New York City and its surrounding boroughs. Its
message, however, resonates loud and clear today. Substitute
Philadelphia for New York--or any large city, for that matter--
and the conversation is just as relevant as it was in 1981.
Now in 2010, we continue to be overwhelmed and under-
resourced in terms of how best to approach the deep fissures in
our criminal justice system. It is time to change the
conversation. The topic of this hearing, witness intimidation--
and I would add to that witness non-cooperation--undermines the
integrity and reliability of our criminal justice system.
From a financial perspective, the Federal Government can
play a meaningful role in guarding victims' rights in proposed
House Resolution 1741, the Witness Security and Protection
Grant Program Act of 2009. The bill would make competitive
grants available to State and local law enforcement
jurisdictions to establish and maintain certain protection and
assistance programs.
As the Inquirer series noted, financial assistance for
these programs has been dwindling since 2007. This is an
excellent opportunity for the Federal Government to aid State
and local law enforcement agencies in combatting the culture of
violence around witness intimidation. This is a necessary bill
whose value cannot be measured in budgetary terms, and I urge
the Committee and the full Senate to enact this bill into law.
Another tangible financial step that the Federal Government
can take is investing in law enforcement technology that
maximizes data sharing and integration between agencies.
``Today's complainant is often tomorrow's defendant,'' as one
of our detectives recently said regarding why he believed
witness non-cooperation with police is so pervasive.
The same people committing crimes are frequently the
victims of crime themselves. Three out of every four shooting
victims in 2008, for example, here in Philadelphia had a
previous arrest record. Of those with an arrest record, 1 out
of 5 had at least 10 or more prior arrests.
All of our investigators should have access to a database
which traces a defendant, his entire criminal history, his
associates, the victims involved, the dispositions of his
hearings, and his status in the correctional system in one
clearinghouse of information. The way in which we deploy
technology throughout the various criminal justice agencies is
a mirror of the criminal justice system itself: fragmented,
decentralized, and lacking coherence of purpose. The overall
efficiency with which all agencies perform their jobs will go a
long way toward helping police and prosecutors fight witness
intimidation and non-cooperation.
On a much broader level, I would also suggest the Federal
Government consider the option of establishing a national major
crime commission. In the past, the Federal Government has
empaneled crime commissions to accomplish this goal of viewing
the entire criminal justice system from a single framework of
relevance.
A national crime commission in 2010 could provide an
invaluable compendium of best practices and strategies for
improvement across the board. The difficulty with addressing
system deficiencies in a piecemeal manner is that a small
change in one part of the system may result in unintended
consequences in another area and we can't continue to operate
that way.
Here in this city, the Philadelphia Police Department will
continue to work hard, and I believe make great strides, at
connecting with many of our diverse communities in reducing
crime. In doing so, we will play an important role in
combatting witness intimidation and non-cooperation. We can't
do it alone, however, changing the system will require a
systems approach and it is here that the Federal Government can
play an important role in supporting State and local law
enforcement agencies.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Commissioner Ramsey appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Specter. Well, thank you very much, Commissioner.
Beginning with the issue of the underlying cause of crime,
you've been at this line of work for a long time. When did you
start at the Chicago Police Department?
Commissioner Ramsey. December, 1968.
Senator Specter. What are your views as to the seriousness
of the crime problem now, 42 years later?
Commissioner Ramsey. Well, for my experience in the 1960s
and early 1970s, we had a very serious problem, primarily
because of gangs, very large and sophisticated gangs. I'm
referring to Chicago, because that's where I'm from and that's
where my experience was in dealing with crime at that
particular point in time. We did see a lull, if you will, in
gang activity in the 1980s, and then a resurgence in the 1990s
with crack cocaine and so forth when it came to the forefront.
Senator Specter. Have we made any improvements in the
intensity of the big-city crime problem?
Commissioner Ramsey. Well, I think we have. I think we've
made significant progress. I think that police departments,
working with communities, have gotten a lot more sophisticated
in being able to target crime specifically through analysis of
data, deploying our resources in a more effective manner, and
the like, building stronger bridges to the community. A lot of
work still needs to be done in that area, there's absolutely no
question about that.
Senator Specter. How about on the issue of the underlying
causes of crime, the issues of education, poverty, housing, job
training?
Commissioner Ramsey. I don't think we've made nearly enough
progress. I think our educational system----
Senator Specter. Not nearly enough, or any, or much?
Commissioner Ramsey. Well, I don't think much. I'd hate to
say we've not made any. I'm not an expert in education, for
example, but certainly many of our children are graduating from
elementary schools, high schools, and in some cases even
colleges, and still are not prepared to deal with the kinds of
jobs that are available in the 21st century. They don't have
the kind of skills to compete for the jobs that are available
oftentimes.
Too many drop out, especially in our public schools in
inner cities. We have too high a rate of drop-outs. We have
dysfunctional families, and now we have generations of
dysfunction within families. So we've got a lot of social
problems that need to be addressed, because crime is the end
result of a lot of these things.
We can't solve it by adding more cops, adding more prisons,
adding more of those kinds of things without taking a look at
the front end of what's driving it to begin with and taking
aggressive steps to correcting that, so that from the beginning
all the way to the end we've taken a comprehensive view of
crime and what's driving crime in order to have a real lasting
impact.
Senator Specter. When you call for a national commission,
Senator Webb and I have introduced the Webb-Specter bill
calling for such a commission. I believe that, before this year
is up, we will have legislation accomplishing that.
Commissioner Ramsey. Good.
Senator Specter. And when you are looking for grants, I'm
co-sponsoring the legislation to provide the grants. That is
more problematic because of the shortage of funding, but where
would you like to see those grants directed?
Commissioner Ramsey. Well, I mean, in the area of
technology, I think, is really essential. We all have
information systems, most of which are outdated, but many
aren't really able to communicate effectively so we can share
information. Witness protection programs, for example, which is
why we're here today. Certainly there's been some funding cut.
We've averaged about $1 million a year; last year I think it
was like $800,000 available.
Senator Specter. How far? How far does that go?
Commissioner Ramsey. Well, it doesn't go far enough. I
mean, it's going to come to a point. The DA's office
administers that, but in speaking with people from that office,
the fear is that a time will come when some people may have to,
in fact, be turned away simply because there's a shortage of
funding. We should be in a position where anyone who has
information to help us in a criminal matter, we ought to be
able to provide that support, should it be needed.
Senator Specter. We're going to take a look, before we're
finished on these hearings, at the Federal Witness/Victim
Protection program. That's a pretty good program, but it's a
very expensive program. When there have been criticisms
directed at the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office on the
conviction rate, it ought to be noted that it's not the
prosecutor's fault when there is not a conviction when there's
not a witness, when the witness has been intimidated or killed.
That has happened, regrettably, too often. We're going to hear
some specifics from two parents, who will tell specifics
illustrative of this kind of a problem.
Another course is to have Federal legislation which would
make it a Federal crime to intimidate a State court witness.
Right now, our legal research shows we do not have such an
offense. That would bring the FBI into the case. As an
experienced police officer, what impact do you think that would
have if these hoodlums who intimidate or murder knew that it
was a Federal matter and that the FBI would be in the case?
Would that make a difference in their approach to witness
intimidation?
Commissioner Ramsey. I think it would make a tremendous
difference. We find, even in cases outside of just witness
intimidation, whenever we're able to bring it to a Federal
court, it does have a different impact on individuals. They
really are fearful of going into Federal court, in many
instances. I think the fact that it would be a Federal offense,
and hopefully with a very, very harsh penalty if convicted, I
think that would make a tremendous difference and make people
think twice before they did it.
Senator Specter. Would you support a mandatory sentence on
witness intimidation?
Commissioner Ramsey. I would. Hopefully it would be a
sufficient penalty. I think that there needs to be a real
strong message sent that it's just not OK to do that.
Senator Specter. Well, I have been pressing for mandatory
sentences on Medicare and Medicaid fraud. It's estimated that
we lose about $45 billion a year on Medicare fraud, when we're
searching for dollars to provide health coverage to 47 million
more Americans. But there is a reluctance today to impose
mandatory sentences, going back to the mandatory sentences on
crack cocaine, which have been out of line, leading to
discretion. But I'm interested in your view as a law
enforcement officer, a police officer, of the value of
mandatory sentences.
Commissioner Ramsey. Well, I think you have to be very
careful with mandatory sentences, personally. But I think
something as serious as witness intimidation, and in many cases
leading to murder, I think that's an exception. I think the
fact that someone would actually intimidate or kill an
individual to keep them from testifying against them in court,
I can't think of many things that are more serious than that.
I think if ever there were a crime where consideration
ought to be given to a mandatory sentence, that falls into that
category. I think we do have to be careful. I think that we did
go overboard with mandatory sentencing in some regards years
ago, but there is a place for it, and I think witness
intimidation is one of those areas.
Senator Specter. You commented that you think a defendant
brought into Federal court takes it more seriously. Why do you
think that is?
Commissioner Ramsey. I don't know why, other than the fact
that, you know, because the system doesn't move as--it doesn't
have the same volume that the State system has, that the
sentences that are imposed in many instances, whether it's a
gun offense or what have you, tends to be longer.
I just think the whole environment or atmosphere when you
go into a Federal court versus a local court is just somewhat
different, and they haven't been exposed to it that often. I
just think it has an impact in the feedback I've gotten from
people on both sides, whether it's another law enforcement
agency or from a person who's been in the criminal justice
system. They do not want to go into Federal court.
Senator Specter. Do you think it has anything to do with
the quality of the Federal court judges contrasted with the
quality of the State court judges?
Commissioner Ramsey. I don't know. I think we've got good
judges at the State level, we've got good judges at the Federal
level, and we've got some that aren't so good at both levels,
having worked in Washington, DC, which is largely a hybrid of a
Federal system. I've seen some judges that left a little to be
desired on the Federal side as well. So, it's up to the
individual judge. I think, by and large, most of them are fair
and most of them do a very good job. But there are some that,
quite frankly, leave something to be desired.
Senator Specter. Do you think there's any inherent
superiority in the appointing process with judicial commissions
and appointments as opposed to the electoral process?
Commissioner Ramsey. Well, the problem I have with the----
Senator Specter. And do you think we ought to elect police
commissioners?
[Laughter.]
Commissioner Ramsey. Well, I mean, you do have sheriffs
that get elected. I mean, there's pros and cons to both. The
biggest problem I have with elected judges, and even being in
law enforcement, when I walk into that voting booth, 80 percent
of the names on that ballot, I don't know who they are, I know
nothing about their record. It'll be Democrat or Republican,
and I don't know what that has to do with their effectiveness
as a judge, what political party they happen to be in. I'd
rather see, what's their conviction rate? What court do they
sit in, what's their conviction rate, what's their track
record? Then I can make a judgment.
I don't see any of that, so to me it's almost a joke, going
in, voting for judges, because you have no personal knowledge.
You look at an editorial section and they may print what they
think is a good judge versus a bad judge, and you have no idea
of how they even arrived at that conclusion. So I think an
appointment system might be better for the average person going
to vote. But no system is perfect.
Senator Specter. We use the expression from time to time
``tougher judges.'' It's hard to quantify what makes a tougher
judge, but you have the judicial discretion pick up on
continuances. Do you think that there's a difference? And I
realize you haven't gotten a whole lot of experience of going
into a Federal court, even as a State court. But do you have
any sense of the difficulty of getting a continuance in a
Federal court contrasted with a State court?
Commissioner Ramsey. I know the continuances at the State
level happen far more frequently than, in many cases, they
should. A lot of witnesses get tired, they have jobs, they've
got to take off work in order to get to court, and that just
goes on, and on, and on. I think there needs to be a limit.
But again, this whole notion of ``tough judges,'' judges
should be fair, should be impartial. But I do think that people
with long criminal histories, that are constantly coming before
the courts, constantly committing crimes, you know, something
has to be done about it.
We have people that have 10, 20, 30, 40 different prior
arrests. At some point in time you have to recognize that that
individual just needs to be taken off the streets. There have
to be consequences and the consequences have to be significant
in order for people to get the message. You just cannot shoot
people, rob people, and do things of that nature and cause harm
to others without having an expectation that there will be some
consequences if you're convicted.
Senator Specter. To what extent--if you know, Commissioner
Ramsey--do witnesses come to you and complain that they're
being threatened, intimidated by defendants in criminal cases
where they're scheduled to testify?
Commissioner Ramsey. I think that it's not even--you know,
I get feedback from our detectives, and that's basically where
it comes from. Sometimes it's not even the overt act, it's just
the fear. People have to live in the neighborhood, they have
children that they fear for. It's not so much sometimes the
individual themselves, it's their family. It's just a way in
which they're viewed within a community, whether that's real,
perceived, or what have you.
But there is a legitimate intimidation factor that's out
there, there's no question about that. We've got to find a way
to do something to make people feel safe and secure if they do
step forward and provide information, because the only way
we're going to deal with crime in communities is when the
community steps forward, but they have to feel comfortable in
doing so and know they have support.
Senator Specter. And when you say within the community, is
there some stigma of disapprobation for people who testify?
Commissioner Ramsey. There's no question, and that's not
just recent. I mean, that's been for a period of time. I mean--
--
Senator Specter. Why is that?
Commissioner Ramsey. Well, I don't know specifically. I
just know that even--you know, you watch an old movie made in
the 1930s and they'll refer to an informant as a rat, you know.
I mean, we use derogatory terms toward people who provide
information, who cooperate with authorities.
I think that that's something that has to stop because it
creates a mind-set that it's wrong, so it puts you in a
situation where you need cooperation, yet there's pressure not
to provide any kind of information or cooperate with
authorities at all, and it just goes on and on and on and
things never get better.
Criminals take advantage of that. They take full advantage
of it, there's no question about it. And if they do get caught
or charged with intimidation and get convicted, I mean, what
happens to them? I mean, it has to be something that is very,
very severe, in my opinion, so that the message is there that
you just can't do that.
Senator Specter. When some prospective witness comes to
complain to the police department about intimidation or
threats, do you have the manpower to begin to cope with witness
protection?
Commissioner Ramsey. Our District Attorney's Office does a
very good job. I mean, the DA actually runs the witness
protection program. They do a very good job. People who are in
the program and who comply with the rules, we don't have an
issue. It's when people decide, you know, to go back to a
neighborhood or don't comply. And it's hard not to. I mean,
you've got family, you've got school, you've got all kind of
issues that cause people to do it, and I'm certainly not
blaming them. But it's just a complicated situation to be in.
But the DA's office, I think, does a very, very good job
when it comes to providing the protection for people who are in
the program. But again, without funding, then they have to
really establish some kind of priority as to who would be
eligible for the program, who wouldn't be, how long can we keep
them in the program, all those kinds of things, and that's
where you start running into problems and issues.
Senator Specter. To what extent does the District
Attorney's Office have resources to provide protection?
Commissioner Ramsey. Well, they'd be in a better position
to say that. I know they've had some cuts. I think the last
couple of years, they've had about $1 million to work with. It
was cut last year; $880,000, I believe is what was available.
Possibility of future cuts. The funding comes through the State
Attorney General's Office.
But again, as more cases go before the courts, as more
people feel comfortable in testifying, then you're going to
have a greater demand for people who are going to need some
kind of protection and you're going to have to have some
funding in place for the DA's office to be able to provide
that. That's where we'll run into some issues. We solved one
problem, but we can create another one for ourselves if we
don't have the resources in place.
Senator Specter. Commissioner Ramsey, thank you for coming
in today to testify.
Commissioner Ramsey. Thank you, sir.
Senator Specter. I thank you for being our police
commissioner.
Commissioner Ramsey. Thank you. Appreciate it.
Senator Specter. We know you have other duties to attend
to, so we would understand if you wish to move on to take care
of those duties.
Commissioner Ramsey. Well, thank you. I do have a couple.
Thank you.
Senator Specter. Thank you very much.
We turn now to our panel of civilian witnesses. We're going
to begin with two parents whom we have here who lost children
as a result of murders of prospective witnesses. I want to
turn, first of all, to Mrs. Barbara Clowden, the mother of Eric
Hayes, who was murdered in November of 2006, just 2 days before
he was to testify in an arson trial.
Because Eric Hayes' life had been threatened in January of
2006, Mrs. Clowden signed a contract with the city, agreeing to
place Eric and the family in the city's witness relocation
program. Funds for relocation were insufficient to support the
family to the time of the trial. Mrs. Clowden now says that
entering the program was ``the worst thing I ever did in my
life.'' She is suing the city for failing to protect her family
and says her son's death was the result of a ``State-created
danger.'' She now says that she wishes her son had never agreed
to testify, understandably so.
Thank you for coming in to testify today, Mrs. Clowden, and
to tell us what your experiences have been. Push the microphone
very close to you and speak into it. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF BARBARA CLOWDEN, VICTIMS' ADVOCATE, PHILADELPHIA,
PENNSYLVANIA
Ms. Clowden. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to
be here today. I lost my son Eric on November 22, 2006. Eric
and my family entered the Witness Relocation Program as a
result of Eric testifying in a trial--scheduled to testify in a
trial of a young man that tried to burn down our house because
they wanted Eric to sell drugs for the local guy there. And the
boy came around to set fire to our house on November 13, 2005,
and Eric looked out the door----
Senator Specter. Why did the boy want to burn down your
house?
Ms. Clowden. Because earlier, like a couple weeks before,
they came around to fight Eric and he was fighting them. And I
guess they felt he--he could be a threat to them, because he
wouldn't sell drugs for them.
Senator Specter. Did the boy who tried to burn down the
house want Eric to participate with him in selling drugs?
Ms. Clowden. Yeah. It was him and another guy.
Senator Specter. And did your son Eric refuse to
participate in drug sales?
Ms. Clowden. Yes.
Senator Specter. And was that the reason he tried to burn
down the house?
Ms. Clowden. Yes.
Senator Specter. Uh-huh. And what did he do specifically
with respect to trying to burn down the house?
Ms. Clowden. He--he was saturating the door with gasoline.
He was pouring a lot of gasoline on the door. At the time that
Eric looked down and seen him, he was getting ready to light
the match.
Senator Specter. And he wanted to burn the house down?
Ms. Clowden. Yes.
Senator Specter. Uh-huh. That's a little hard to
comprehend, Mrs. Clowden. I don't doubt that you are laying out
the facts, but isn't that extreme, to commit an arson, take
people's lives, over the disagreement with that man--I won't
call him a boy, that man--had with your son?
Ms. Clowden. I would say it was a bit extreme, but that's
what happened.
Senator Specter. I'm asking you the question to try to
understand what happens there. Can you give any insight into
why somebody would do something so drastic under those
circumstances?
Ms. Clowden. No. I guess it's just, when people want things
done the way they wanted to do it and you don't--they--people
don't do what they want them to do, everybody do things in a
different way.
Senator Specter. No regard for human life.
Ms. Clowden. Well, he didn't have none.
Senator Specter. Or suffering. To be burned to death is a
pretty horrible fate. But that's what he was doing, lighting--
pouring gasoline to light the house on fire.
Ms. Clowden. Yes. That's what he was doing.
Senator Specter. Then what happened with respect to the
Witness Protection Program?
Ms. Clowden. Well, we entered into the Witness Protection
Program and they put us in a hotel.
Senator Specter. Mrs. Clowden, I can hear you, but they
can't hear you all the way in the back.
Ms. Clowden. OK. We entered into the Witness Protection
Program.
Senator Specter. Your picture is going to be on television,
but your voice won't be, so speak up.
Ms. Clowden. They put us in a hotel and they said that we
were going to have to look for another place to live, and they
said they were going to assist us in that. So we went to one
hotel and we stayed there.
Senator Specter. You went to the DA's office and they made
arrangements for you to go to a hotel?
Ms. Clowden. Yes. The District Attorney's Office.
Senator Specter. And what happened next?
Ms. Clowden. And we went to the hotel and we lived in the
hotel for a lot of months.
Senator Specter. For how long?
Ms. Clowden. From January the 13th to the end of October
1906.
Senator Specter. Do you have any idea why it took so long
for the trial to come up?
Ms. Clowden. No. I don't know why it took so long for the
trial.
Senator Specter. And then what happened?
Ms. Clowden. While we were in the hotel, looking for a
place to stay--it's kind of hard to look for a place to stay.
We had to move all of our things. We went to the hotel and we
were looking for a place to stay, but a lot of problems came
from having to do that, look for----
Senator Specter. What happened? Who came?
Ms. Clowden. A lot of problems. We had a lot of problems
finding another place to stay.
Senator Specter. Why did you have to find another place to
stay?
Ms. Clowden. Because Eric was being threatened after the
guy got arrested and we had to go to----
Senator Specter. Did the guy know where Eric was in the
hotel?
Ms. Clowden. Before we went to the hotel.
Senator Specter. Huh?
Ms. Clowden. Before we went to the hotel, we was at our
house and that's why we left our house.
Senator Specter. Right.
Ms. Clowden. Because they kept coming near to fight him and
telling him, don't go to court. And they told me that if he
kept going to court, I was going to have a dead son.
Senator Specter. Then what happened?
Ms. Clowden. So when we went to the preliminary hearing, I
told the District Attorney what had happened and they suggested
that we leave--leave the house.
Senator Specter. And then you left the house and went to
the hotel?
Ms. Clowden. Yes.
Senator Specter. What happened next?
Ms. Clowden. We--we lived in the hotel. Like I said, we was
in the hotel and I was trying to find another place to live,
since I couldn't go back to my house.
Senator Specter. And did you find another place to live?
Ms. Clowden. No. I couldn't find a place to live because I
still had the responsibility of my house, and my income was
limited. The city didn't have no--no resources to help you if
you came into that situation.
Senator Specter. So what did you do? Did you go back to
your house?
Ms. Clowden. No. They--they put us in another hotel and
they said that they would help me--give me a subsidy program
called Transitional Housing, and with that program you have to
stay in Philadelphia. And I kept saying, well, I think we need
to leave Philadelphia, because if we don't they're going to
kill my son. And they was like, the city of Philadelphia, OESS,
was like, well, we'll just give you transitional housing and
you just move to another part of Philadelphia, and that's what
we did. And 2 weeks after we moved into the house that they
helped us get, he got shot. That's when they shot Eric.
Senator Specter. The man found your son and shot him?
Ms. Clowden. Yes. We were two--yeah. Two weeks after we
moved into the house.
Senator Specter. Uh-huh. What were the circumstances, if
you know, as to how he found your son and how he shot him?
Ms. Clowden. I'm not sure how they found out where we were
at.
Senator Specter. And what happened to the shooter?
Ms. Clowden. The police department said they didn't have
enough evidence to arrest anyone. They did arrest someone, but
then they said he confessed to the murder, but then they came
back and said that he didn't do it because he was in a lock-up
facility in another part of the city on that day, and so it
wasn't him.
Senator Specter. So has anybody been prosecuted for the
murder of your son Eric?
Ms. Clowden. No. They said they don't have--they don't have
enough evidence to really get a conviction.
Senator Specter. Well, thank you for providing that
testimony, Mrs. Clowden.
Ms. Clowden. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Clowden appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Specter. We turn now to Mr. Ted Canada,
Philadelphia resident, SEPTA bus driver, single parent. In
2005, his son, Lamar Canada, was shot 12 times and killed by
Dominick Peoples and another unidentified shooter in
Philadelphia over a gambling debt. One witness to the shooting,
Johnta Gravitt, 17 years old, was murdered 10 days after he
testified at the preliminary hearing and identified Peoples as
one of the shooters. Another witness, Martin Thomas, initially
cooperated, but after his statement to the police was publicly
posted, the neighborhood identified him as a snitch and he
recanted. Peoples was convicted.
Mr. Canada is active in the anti-violence group, Men United
for a Better Philadelphia.
Mr. Canada, thank you for coming in. Pull the microphone
close and tell us what happened to your son here.
STATEMENT OF TED CANADA, VICTIMS' ADVOCATE, PHILADELPHIA,
PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Canada. Good morning, everyone. Thanks a lot for having
me.
In 2005, my son, he was drastically murdered. It was very
senseless violence that we see that's taking place in the city,
not only in the city of Philadelphia, but all over the world.
The part that got to me mostly was losing a son at such a young
age, and after that, losing another young man that was trying
to do the right thing. This young man, Johnta Gravitt, to me
and my family, was basically a hero because we were able to get
some closure in our son's murder. Unfortunately, Ms. Barbara
Clowden was not. That was--came from Johnta and other people
stepping up to testify.
However, I don't feel as though Johnta got a good deal out
of it because he was murdered 10 days later, and the police
obviously said it had no connection to him testifying at my
son's hearing. However, our family felt different.
When he came to the hearing to testify, he basically was on
his own. When we left the hearing, ironically, the police did
not even escort Mr. Gravitt home. He was actually headed for a
bus stop when my uncle and myself and our family members
noticed that he was getting ready to catch the bus and we
offered him a ride home. And in the statement, if you read the
statement and article in the Inquirer, one of the officers
stated that it was safer for Johnta to catch the bus than it
would be for two white officers to take him home in his
neighborhood.
So I just came up with a few common-sense examples of
things that you can do, because generally what happens is,
everybody tries to turn everything over to a budget and they
start thinking, well, it's the budget, we don't have money to
do this, we don't have money to do that. That's what it usually
boils down to every time you want to make changes or every time
you want to do something different.
A lot of times it just takes common sense, such as--you
know, my suggestion was, you know, you can come up with the
answer of two white officers. Why wouldn't you just allow two
black officers, or just officers in general that can fit the
job that needs to be done? I mean, you have different--I've
been down to the courthouses and I've seen officers who look as
young as 18 years of age and younger. I mean, why not utilize
the correct people to do the correct job? I mean, it doesn't
take money. I mean, and also, we need to stop making it so easy
for these witnesses' information----
Senator Specter. Mr. Canada, I'm not following you on the
distinction you made between the two black officers and the two
white officers. Could you amplify what you mean?
Mr. Canada. Sure. What I mean is, if you're going to have--
if you're dealing in a black neighborhood, yes--what the
officer was trying to say, that if two white officers bring a
black youth home, it's going to stand out like a sore thumb. So
what I'm saying is, why not use two black officers so it
doesn't make it so obvious?
Senator Specter. I see.
Mr. Canada. Black, young, youth officers that can probably
assist these gentlemen.
Senator Specter. So it doesn't stand out that the young man
may be cooperating with the police.
Mr. Canada. Right. That is correct.
Senator Specter. OK. I've got you now.
Mr. Canada. That is correct. And also, stop making it so
easy. How was it that that gentleman's testimony posted up in a
Chinese restaurant right in his very own neighborhood? Someone
had to get that testimony for them to have that and point it
up, to start calling the gentleman a snitch or a rat. So, his
life was threatened.
And it's so many different ways that we probably could
utilize the witness intimidation without being--you know,
putting a financial burden on the State, such as, I mean,
simple stuff. Maybe, why not let the witnesses testify via
video? I mean, you can testify via video, whereas you're not
feeling unsafe, you're not probably at the place. I mean, I'm
sure with today's technology, that could be done.
Also, you know, the postponements of the court hearings.
It's like, it's amazing how, you know, a court case drags on
for years and years and years. And for a prime example, my son
had two shooters. One shooter was brought to justice, and just
recently it took all these years to bring the other shooter to
justice. And everybody knew who this gentleman was, however,
after Johnta was murdered and the other witness was
intimidated, no one stepped up.
So now it took all the way until New Year's Eve for me to
get a call from the detectives, letting me know--which was very
courteous of him, to let me know that they got the other
shooter. However, they did not get him on my son's case, they
got him on another murder because they couldn't get him on my
son's case because everybody was afraid to step up. So if you
start protecting these witnesses more, ensuring them some type
of safety, I'm sure more witnesses would step up and speak out.
But if you're not going to--if you're just going to take them
and get the testimonies and throw them to the wolves, you know,
it's obvious that nobody wants--like you say, you know,
everybody has a life. You know, people want to live their life
and people want to go on with their normal lives. They don't
want to have to relocate, move, and take their children from
one school to another and live in fear. Who wants to live in
fear? I mean, I don't, you know. And I'm just grateful that,
you know, the detectives and the police department did a great
job on, you know, handling my son's murder to give us closure.
And I really, you know, appreciate the fact that they kept in
touch, and I kept on--on them myself. And instead of me, you
know, going ballistically crazy and wanting revenge, I chose to
do it another way by, you know, joining an organization that we
basically are against violence, and we go out to try to stop,
you know, violence.
And I'm actually starting another organization myself,
Fathers Fed Up. I can always let gentlemen of my character,
people who have gone through what I've gone through, have a
place to come and listen and talk and we can all, you know,
have different opinions on what we need to do about going out,
trying to get these youths. Because it starts at home, like
Commissioner Ramsey was saying. It starts at home. And I don't
want to give my age, but when I came up, the whole neighborhood
was in charge of a child.
Senator Specter. Why don't you want to give your age?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Canada. Because, you know, when we had that kind of
stuff going on where your neighbor could discipline you or your
teachers could discipline you, it was less. We had less
violence. Now it's just like, a lot of people come from broken
homes, a lot of people come from drug-infested homes. And a lot
of that starts at the house and it escalates into violence.
Senator Specter. Mr. Canada, have you noticed any
improvement in the crime problem in Philadelphia since you
were, say, a teenager to the present time?
Mr. Canada. The only improvement that I could say that I've
really noticed, because I actually was a part of the gang era--
I grew up in the 1960s and 1970s--and I do commend them for
stopping the gang wars. However, anything after that, it
doesn't seem like it's so much of a difference.
Senator Specter. When were you a teenager, without prying
too much?
[Laughter.]
Senator Specter. Just to give an idea of the span of your
experience.
Mr. Canada. Back in the 1970s and 1980s.
Senator Specter. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.
When you said his picture was posted, amplify what you
meant by that.
Mr. Canada. No. I said his statement, the statement of one
of the witnesses was actually posted up in a Chinese restaurant
in his neighborhood. And what it looks like right now----
Senator Specter. The statement, the testimony he gave?
Mr. Canada. The testimony. That's correct. It was posted.
Senator Specter. They were trying to expose him?
Mr. Canada. Yes. And they were basically calling the
gentleman, you know, a snitch or a rat, and so on and so forth,
like the Commissioner was stating earlier. I'm trying to figure
out why, or how could anyone even get, you know, a copy of
something like that to--to post it up, which means, you know,
somebody's not being held accountable for, you know, things
that they're doing because----
Senator Specter. The Commissioner testified about going
back to the movies in the 1930s, using the comment ``rat,''
somebody who told on somebody else. Has that gotten any worse,
say, today than it was when you were growing up in the 1960s
and 1970s?
Mr. Canada. No, sir. No, sir. It's changed. It's just a
different slang. It's the same terminology, it's just put in a
different way. Today they call them snitches. They have a
phrase out there, ``snitches get stitches.'' And, you know,
it's just a different terminology. Our group, Men United, we
were--we held a big protest about those tee shirts being
printed up. We went to several stores and caused a lot of
commotion and we got a lot of merchants to take those tee
shirts--they had tee shirts printed up about snitches, don't--
stop snitching, and don't be a snitch. So it's just different
terminology, that's all. It's the same.
Senator Specter. Your son was shot 12 times?
Mr. Canada. That's correct.
Senator Specter. Uh-huh. Because he was going to be a
witness?
Mr. Canada. No, my son wasn't going to be a witness.
Senator Specter. Why was he shot?
Mr. Canada. My son was shot--I got two different--two or
three different reasons, but one of the reasons they print
mostly was over a gambling debt. Two young men were arguing
over a gambling debt. But----
Senator Specter. And so who was the witness who was
intimidated?
Mr. Canada. Johnta. That's the gentleman that I was
speaking about. He--he got shot, Johnta Gravitt. He was shot
and killed 10 days later, after testifying.
Senator Specter. Because he was going to be a witness on
your son's murder?
Mr. Canada. He had already testified.
Senator Specter. He testified at the preliminary hearing?
Mr. Canada. That's correct. Which gave--which they were
still able to use his testimony, even though they had killed
him.
Senator Specter. They could use the testimony at the
preliminary hearing.
Mr. Canada. That is correct. They used his testimony, which
was enabling us to get closure and bringing one of the gunman
to--you know, to justice.
Senator Specter. OK. Thank you very much, Mr. Canada.
Mr. Canada. Thank you as well.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Canada appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Specter. We'll turn now to Mr. Michael Coard, Esq.,
criminal defense lawyer, more than 15 years of State and
Federal trial experience, formerly worked at the Charles W.
Bowser Law Center after he served as legal counsel for State
Senator Hardy Williams. Let me pause and express my regret
about the passing of Senator Hardy Williams yesterday.
Mr. Coard. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Specter. A friend of mine for decades, outstanding
lawyer.
Mr. Coard. Yes.
Senator Specter. Outstanding public official. Also an
outstanding basketball player, going back quite a few years.
Mr. Coard. Absolutely.
Senator Specter. Mr. Coard is an adjunct professor in the
African Studies Department and the Urban Studies Department at
Temple, as well as an instructor in the Criminal Justice
University's Pan-African Studies program.
He is the recipient of many awards, including the
prestigious Cecil B. Moore award. Did you know Mr. Cecil B.
Moore?
Mr. Coard. I did not, no.
Senator Specter. Well, he was a distinguished trial lawyer.
Mr. Coard. I heard so much about him, Senator. Yes.
Senator Specter. He was quite a personality. Head of the
NAACP.
Mr. Coard. I've heard all the war stories.
Senator Specter. And probably had more continuances than
any defense lawyer in the history of Philadelphia.
Mr. Coard. They had a courtroom set up specifically for
him.
Senator Specter. It was more than a courtroom, it was a
special program. Because he had so many cases, he could have
been in any one of 20 courtrooms. So while I was DA, we decided
to put in the one courtroom, so he sued me in the Federal court
for violating his civil rights. The judge said, no, a District
Attorney is within his rights, and you've got to go to trial
and we've got to figure out where you are, because he'd have 20
listings and he wouldn't try any of them. And when he had 20
listings, we thought we ought to try one of them, so we did set
up the special courtroom.
But notwithstanding those differences, we were good friends
and we had quite a professional relationship. He had a very
unusual accident: he fell down an elevator shaft. Did you know
that?
Mr. Coard. I did not know that.
Senator Specter. Yes. Yes. A very handsome man, before he
fell down the elevator shaft. OK. Enough of history.
Mr. Coard, we look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL COARD, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL COARD,
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Coard. Thank you, Senator Specter.
First of all, I gratefully thank you for inviting me to
testify before this Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
Committee on Crimes and Drugs, regarding ``Federal Efforts to
Address Witness Intimidation at the State and local Levels.'' I
am honored, as I am sure the other invitees are, to be here.
I've been a trial lawyer for nearly 20 years, a civic
activist for more than 15 years, a local radio show host for
over 10 years, and a university adjunct professor for
approximately 5 years. It is because of those roles that I can
unequivocally say that the best--in fact the only--way for the
Federal Government to address witness intimidation at the State
and local levels is by adhering to the Constitution of the
United States of America.
Stated another way, the Federal Government must make sure
that it does not break the law in order to make the law. The
United States Constitution, the Sixth Amendment, and the
Pennsylvania Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, mandate that a
person accused of a crime has the fundamental right to be
confronted with witnesses against him or her.
I mention this because one of the first actions always
considered in the commendable attempt to protect against
witness intimidation is the condemnable attempt to allow
illegal hearsay in as evidence in a trial or hearing. The
erroneous rationale is that the most effective way to stop
witness intimidation is to allow police officers or other
persons to testify in court about what they allegedly heard
someone else who is not in court say. Not only is that
unconstitutional, it is also unfair.
In Pennsylvania, including, obviously, Philadelphia, there
is case law and statutory law already on the books that, under
certain legally-sanctioned circumstances, allow for non-
testifying witnesses'--i.e., hearsay issue-related witnesses--
statements to be entered into evidence. One example is Rule 803
of the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence.
Moreover, numerous longstanding Pennsylvania public court
decisions permit such throughout the criminal court process,
most notably, interlia, at preliminary hearings wherein hearsay
objections by defense counsel are often a complete waste of
breath.
Furthermore, in cases wherein witnesses do appear in court
but purportedly are so intimidated that they testify in a
manner that contradicts their previous statements to police
against defendants, there also are laws already on the books
that, once again, under certain legally-sanctioned
circumstances, allow for those earlier inculpatory prior
inconsistent statements to be used against defendants
regardless of what those witnesses later testify to in court.
Two examples are Rules 607 and 613 of the aforesaid
Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence, and there are longstanding
Pennsylvania public court decisions that also allow such.
Accordingly, there is absolutely no need for Federal
involvement in terms of creating law or expending limited
resources, neither is there absolutely any need for creating
more State law. Instead, there is simply a need to more
intelligently, hence efficiently, enforce State law that
already exists.
In addition to the aforementioned State laws that already
permit certain hearsay statements or hearsay issue-related
statements to be entered into evidence, there are also State
laws that already protect victims of witness intimidation, and
those laws are found in Pennsylvania Crimes Code Section 4925,
``Intimidation of Witnesses or Victims,'' and 4953,
``Retaliation Against Witness, Victim, or Party,'' both of
which can be charged as felonies. We all must, and should, have
genuine sympathy for victims of witness intimidation, certainly
when violence results, and especially when death results.
But the Federal Government should not be in the business of
engaging in unlawful--i.e., unconstitutional--behavior in an
attempt to protect the public from criminals' unlawful--i.e.,
murderous and otherwise violent--behavior. The Constitution
must, and should, apply to all law-abiders, as well as to law-
breakers; after all, this is America.
I would be remiss if I failed to address what actually led
to this hearing, and that is the Philadelphia Inquirer's
apparently well-intentioned, but frightfully inflammatory and
journalistically incomplete four-part series from December 13
through December 16, 2009. It was frightfully inflammatory in
its unnecessary use of phrases such as ``blood-splashed,''
``witness intimidation as an epidemic in Philadelphia that
pervades Philadelphia criminal courts, which are in a crisis,''
and also defendants ``beating cases and escaping convictions
with stunning regularity.'' It was journalistically incomplete
in its failure to fairly acknowledge an essential principle of
American criminal jurisprudence, which is that a person who is
arrested is always presumed innocent.
As stated to me by Troy H. Wilson, Esq., a noted criminal
and civil court litigator and the former chairman of the
Philadelphia Bar Association's Criminal Justice Section, ``The
Inquirer's articles were based on a flawed premise, which is
that people released on so-called technicalities were guilty.
However, the presumption of innocence is paramount and
continues even after a person's case has been discharged,
whether due to the District Attorney's delay, or any other
reason.''
In addition, asserted Wilson, ``Defendants do not
automatically get off scot-free during those actually
relatively few times when cases are dismissed as a result of
witnesses' failure to appear.'' As he makes clear, ``The
District Attorney has the legal wherewithal to merely file, and
easily file, a motion to rearrest the defendant on the very
same dismissed charges in such cases. It's as simple as that.''
The Inquirer directed most of the blame for this supposed
epidemic and crisis on criminal defense attorneys, the men and
women who serve as vigilant watchdogs to make sure that the
State and Federal Constitutions are respected and that the
local, State, and Federal Governments are barred from
unconstitutional violations. The newspaper claimed that,
``Defense lawyers routinely exploit the court system's chaos by
delaying cases to wear down victims and witnesses and seek
spurious postponements if they know the prosecution witnesses
are in court and ready to go.''
The moniker, ``Philadelphia Special'' was used in the four-
part series to describe this kind of unethical behavior.
However, prominent defense counsel George H. Newman, Esq.
indicated to me that in his more than three decades as a
criminal trial lawyer, he has never heard of such a name or
concept. In my nearly twenty years, neither have I, and that is
because it does not exist.
Mr. Newman made another, much more key point about the
series in general when he said that, ``The Inquirer's
statistical analysis is unrealistic, since it precludes
preliminary hearings. As all lawyers and judges know, the
District Attorney consistently over-charged arrested persons,
filed baseless criminal accusations, and prosecuted unprovable
cases.''
''Moreover,'' remarked Newman, ``the articles are filled
with statistical misrepresentations, panicky innuendoes, and
some worst-case anecdotes.'' In connection with baseless
criminal accusations and unprovable cases, another
distinguished criminal trial attorney, namely Charles A.
Cunningham, who was first assistant in the Defender Association
of Philadelphia and has been a member of the Pennsylvania Bar
for 35 years, pointed out to me that the District Attorney
often accuses and jails factually innocent people.
He noted the recent case wherein someone allegedly claimed
to have been attacked by three persons, which resulted in three
men being arrested, detained, and jailed when they could not
afford to pay bail. However, after 3 months--i.e., about 90
days--when the preliminary hearing was finally held, the
complainant identified only one of the three as an attacker.
The second defendant was actually a Good Samaritan who had
attempted to intervene on behalf of the victim, and the third
defendant was merely present with 20 others near the scene.
Why didn't the District Attorney investigate the facts
before, in effect, sentencing these two defendants to
unwarranted and lengthy jail time? Although these two were
ultimately released as a result of the unrebutted exculpatory
evidence at the preliminary hearing, they lost a quarter of a
year of their lives that can never be replaced and for which
they will never be compensated, and they, as well as many other
similarly situated persons, are cavalierly lumped into the
Inquirer's gang of defendants who are supposedly ``beating
cases and escaping convictions with stunning regularity.''
As mentioned in Mr. Cunningham's final comments, even if
the criminal justice system is completely broken, it is not
because of what the Inquirer contends. Instead, it is because
of a system that refuses to address ``the real issues that
cause crime to occur in the first place,'' obvious issues, such
as the lack of education and employment.
While there is no crisis, there is a problem, even if just
a comparatively few witnesses are intimidated. But with every
problem, there is always a solution, and that solution, without
the need for a journalistic hair-on-fire-sky-is-falling
alarmism, is quite simple.
In fact, any, some, or all of the following could
immediately be implemented: (1) housing, transportation,
protection, and/or financial incentives for witnesses before
trial; (2) relocation for witnesses after trials; (3) separate
courtroom waiting rooms for witnesses; (4) community police/
community prosecuting, coalition-building with ex-cons, local
athletes, and local hip-hop celebrities in order to persuade
citizens, especially those in the approximately 15 to 25 age
range, that cooperating with law enforcement to protect one's
neighborhood does not constitute snitching; and, finally, (5)
education, job training, and employment opportunities in high-
crime neighborhoods in order to discourage criminality, which
would reduce crime and which would in turn reduce even the need
for witnesses.
In conclusion, I again thank the esteemed Senator Arlen
Specter for inviting me to testify at this Committee hearing
regarding primarily the purported crisis of witness
intimidation in Philadelphia.
I end my testimony with a question. If there is so much
witness intimidation, meaning evidence ostensibly substantial
enough to justify arresting, charging, and jailing so many
persons with that serious crime, why then are more than 7 out
of 10 persons accused of that offense found not guilty or
otherwise freed?
Thank you, Senator.
Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. Coard.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Coard appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Specter. When you criticize the Inquirer article,
don't you think that there are major problems in the system
which need action, such as the fugitives--estimated, one
figure, 47,000 fugitives--with the need to have resources
devoted to apprehending those individuals? Isn't that one issue
which it's useful to have some spotlight on?
Mr. Coard. Absolutely. In fact, I think the Philadelphia
Inquirer did a great service to the community by provoking this
discussions. The primary criticism that I have, Senator, is
that the Inquirer simply went for the easiest target, which
seems to be defense attorneys, that if bad guys get off, it's
because of some trick being played by defense attorneys, which
could not be further from the truth.
Senator Specter. So you would concede that, as in your own
words, the Inquirer did do some real public service in some
lines?
Mr. Coard. Absolutely.
Senator Specter. And with respect to the issue of Federal
grants to be able to assist a city like Philadelphia, which has
a very low tax base and grave difficulties allocating funds on
housing, education, et cetera, if the result is to have some
Federal money, isn't that a desirable consequence, too, as a
result of the spotlight?
Mr. Coard. Absolutely, positively. In fact, that was one of
the suggestions that I included in my proposals as to how this
issue could be addressed. So, absolutely, positively, Senator.
No doubt about it.
Senator Specter. Do you think it would be appropriate to
have Federal legislation which would make it a Federal crime to
intimidate a State court witness?
Mr. Coard. No, and I'm glad you asked that. There's
absolutely no need for it, as we have now in Pennsylvania--we
have two laws on the books where persons who commit that type
of egregious crime could be charged with a felony. So it simply
seems to me that the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office
could go after the people, and go after them vigorously, for
this type of crime.
Senator Specter. Mr. Coard, there are many offenses which
are Federal crimes, even though they are State court crimes as
well. The Armed Career Criminal Act, for example, a law that I
wrote in 1984. I had experience on so many burglary and robbery
cases where probation was given, and we defined a career
criminal caught with a firearm, giving a mandatory sentence.
Perhaps you don't think that was a good bill. Let me start by
asking you if you think that was a good bill.
Mr. Coard. Well, absolutely. The distinguishing factor here
is that, why have two good laws when you already have one great
law? We already have the laws in Pennsylvania. They cover
precisely what you're talking about and what the Inquirer is
talking about. If there were no felony law to go after these
bad guys who intimidate witnesses, then I wouldn't be
complaining as I am. But we already have it.
Senator Specter. But you thought the Armed Career Criminal
bill was a good bill?
Mr. Coard. I think--the answer is yes. And I think any bill
that goes after violent criminals in a way that the State law
can't do is always a good thing. But in this case, the State
law can do it, and do it well.
Senator Specter. Well, Mr. Coard, you practice in both the
Federal and the State courts.
Mr. Coard. Yes.
Senator Specter. Isn't it true that if it's a Federal
offense and the FBI is on the case and you're going to be
called into a Federal court, that there's considerably more
concern by a prospective defendant of being prosecuted there
than in the State courts?
Mr. Coard. Yes. But--and the but is a big one--with all due
respect to the Federal prosecutors, who do a great job, the
county prosecutors in the Philadelphia District Attorney's
Office do just as great--I won't say better, but as good a job,
if not better. I think the distinguishing factor is the
resources that the Federal Government has that the State
government doesn't have. If we flipped it----
Senator Specter. That's a big distinguishing factor.
Mr. Coard. And so to me, that's the issue. And not only do
they have more resources on the Federal level, if you gave that
same money to the District Attorney's Office in Philadelphia,
they could show you the same stats that the Feds do. But apart
from the financial resources, there's the type of cases.
Senator Specter. Is it easier to get a continuance in the
State court than in the Federal court?
Mr. Coard. It's difficult in both. But to answer your
question directly, it's almost impossible in the Federal court
to get a continuance. But one thing, one point----
Senator Specter. I take that as a yes answer.
Mr. Coard. Absolutely. One quick point I did want to make
is that in every case I've had, mostly armed robbery cases that
have left the State courts and gone to the Federal courts, the
evidence has been overwhelming. So it seems unfair to say that
the State prosecutors can't get a conviction but the Federal
prosecutors can get a conviction.
The point is, in my experience over 20 years, the Feds get
the better cases, the stronger cases. In my experience, I've
never had a case as weak in the Federal level as I've had in
the State level. So it seems to me that because the resources
of the Federal Government, because they get stronger cases,
it's easier to get more convictions.
Senator Specter. You gave some testimony on the use of
hearsay and you dealt with prior inconsistent statements, and
you can impeach a witness on a prior inconsistent statement.
But isn't that testimony on impeachment limited by the judge's
instruction on the credibility of the witness as opposed to the
substantive testimony on the underlying offense?
Mr. Coard. Well, I'd argue, respectfully, no. In situations
where the Commonwealth----
Senator Specter. You don't have to be respectful. Why do
you argue no?
Mr. Coard. Thank you. In every case I've ever had where the
Commonwealth has attempted to bring in prior inconsistent
statement, the judge would rule based on whether or not one
statement was directly contrary to the other statement, not so
much about the issue of credibility. But if the witness today
is saying no, but the prosecution can show that yesterday he
said yes, the judge has always allowed that in, regardless of
whether the judge thinks that the witness was lying before.
Senator Specter. But doesn't the judge give limiting
instruction? Let me rephrase the question: shouldn't the judge
give a limiting instruction on cross examination going to
credibility as opposed to substantive evidence?
Mr. Coard. Well, yes. In fact, defense attorneys often
request that. But to be quite honest, once the jurors have
heard the inconsistency, then they're going to make their
decision. But you're absolutely correct.
Senator Specter. That's different.
Mr. Coard. Certainly. But to answer your question directly,
yes, the judge can give that limiting instruction. But I think
every trial lawyer knows that limiting instructions really
don't mean a whole lot. A judge will tell the jury to consider
certain evidence for this, but not for that. That's like
telling the jury, think of everything except a blue horse.
Well, the first thing they're going to think of is what they
were told not to. So, limiting instructions are a good thing
because they're the only thing, but they're not an effective
thing.
Senator Specter. How about a mistrial?
Mr. Coard. That's great from a defense standpoint, but
that's rare.
Senator Specter. If the limiting instruction is
insufficient, you have the recourse of a mistrial. Mr. Coard,
we're going to be back here, I don't know how many decades, and
we're going to have a young lawyer testify who occupies the
Michael A. Coard chair of some distinguished law school. You
are very articulate and obviously a good lawyer.
Mr. Coard. Thank you, sir.
Senator Specter. We thank you for coming in.
Mr. Coard. I appreciate hearing that from you.
Senator Specter. Our final witness is Professor Richard
Frei, Associate Professor at Philadelphia Community College. He
headed up the Snitching Project. I infer that that's
academically heading up a project as opposed to being a head
snitcher.
Professor Frei. No, heading up the project.
Senator Specter. In conjunction with the Center for Law and
Society. He has directed interdisciplinary, student-driven
research initiatives on the phenomenon of snitching, trained
students in applied research. He has a bachelor's degree in
Psychology and a very distinguished academic record, and is
undertaking a very interesting line of study.
Thank you for joining us, and we look forward to your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD L. FREI, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, COMMUNITY
COLLEGE OF PHILADELPHIA
Dr. Frei. Thank you, Senator Specter. Thank you for the
honor of appearing before you today. My name is Dr. Rick Frei.
I'm Associate Professor of Psychology at Community College of
Philadelphia. My area of expertise is applied community
research, specializing in using large-scale survey research as
our teaching tool in my psychology courses.
Over the past decade I have overseen a number of large-
scale community surveys on topics such as the use of check-
cashing institutions, corporal punishment, attitudes toward
guns and gun violence, and over the past 2 years, the ``Stop
Snitching'' phenomenon and its impact on the community
involvement in the Philadelphia community justice system.
Today we've heard heartbreaking and disturbing testimony
from victims and advocates regarding rampant witness
intimidation that is prevalent in Philadelphia, although Mr.
Coard seems to think it's not as prevalent as the Inquirer
said.
My goal today is to frame the testimony in a larger context
of the Stop Snitching movement. For example, in the
Philadelphia Inquirer's recent extensive reporting on the
failures of our criminal justice system, the reporters describe
the case of Martin Thomas, whose statement to police was turned
into a threatening flyer that was posted throughout North
Philadelphia.
While the primary goal of this flyer was to physically
threaten the witness, it also served a secondary purpose,
identifying Thomas as a rat who could no longer be trusted in
this neighborhood. The idea that cooperating with police could
in fact tarnish your reputation among family, friends and
neighbors, even if the perpetrator of the crime was a feared or
despised person, is at the core of the Stop Snitching
phenomenon. Such intimidation techniques can only occur if the
community buys into the Stop Snitching culture.
My goal today is to give you a better understanding of the
people's attitudes toward snitching and cooperating with
police, which ultimately facilitate the coercive witness
intimidation techniques that we have heard so much about today.
The Stop Snitching phenomenon is widely discussed in the
media, yet poorly understood as a psychological construct. It
is regularly decried as a major impediment to law enforcement,
and yet scant systematic research has been conducted to
identify its possible origins. Even the word ``snitch,'' which
we talked about before, has been so misused and overused in the
media, that it's now synonymous with anyone who cooperates with
any authority figure, regardless of the situation.
For example, recently when National Football League
Commissioner Roger Goodell recently called for players to tell
their teams' medical staffs if they suspected a teammate showed
symptoms of a concussion, Washington Redskin fullback Mike
Sellers responded, ``We ain't no snitches over here. This is
not happening.'' What was once considered a code among thieves
and then a code of the street is quickly becoming a societal
norm.
The Snitching Project is an ongoing student-driven public
policy research initiative in conjunction with Community
College of Philadelphia's Center for Law and Society, aimed at
developing a better understanding of the snitching phenomenon
and facilitating community discussion through education.
The project began in 2007 as part of an applied psychology
course at the college. Students conducted extensive library
research on the topic of snitching and cooperating with police.
Based on this research, students next conducted focus groups
throughout the city of Philadelphia to get a better
understanding of snitching, people's attitudes toward the
police, and community involvement.
From these focus groups, we concluded that: (A) there is
not one common definition of snitching; and (B) both
attitudinal and situational factors influence whether, and to
what extent, a person would provide evidence to the police.
We developed hypotheses regarding the nature of the
snitching construct, possible antecedents and correlates of
snitching attitudes, and situational factors, such as
characteristics of the victim or the perpetrator, that might
influence involvement. Then the students administer the survey
to test their hypothesis to about 1,500 community college
students, so we had a very large sample for this.
My goal today is going to be a brief summary of that
research, along with some of the recommendations regarding ways
to improve community involvement in our criminal justice
system. I'm not going to go through the whole thing here, but a
couple things I want to point out here.
First and foremost, one of the things that Commissioner
Ramsey had spoken about was looking at people's life
experiences and their attitudes toward snitching. One of the
things he said was that people who had past experience with
police and the criminal justice system and those who engaged in
illegal behavior would be more likely to view any form of
cooperating with police as a form of snitching. Further, they
would be less likely to trust police.
What we found was that nearly half of our respondents
reporting being victims of crime, so out of the 1,500 students
we had asked, almost 750 said that they had been victims of
crime in the city, and nearly two-thirds had friends or
relatives who had been victims of crime as well. Twenty-one
percent of the respondents have been in trouble with the police
before; 17 percent reported being falsely accused of a crime in
the past; 7 percent said they had been snitched on before, and
only 2 percent said they'd ever snitched on anyone else.
What we found is that over 60 percent said that they knew a
police officer personally, and nearly half reported cooperating
with police in the past, although half the sample also said
they did not trust police at all. Those respondents who knew
police officers personally were more likely to trust the police
and less likely to view cooperating with police as a form of
snitching.
We also hypothesized that students who engaged in illegal
behavior would be more likely to find snitching as cooperating
with police and less likely to cooperate with police in any
situation. To assess illegal behavior, we asked students if
they'd used illegal drugs in the past 30 days. Fifteen percent
of our sample said they had. We also asked students if they had
drunk alcohol in the past 7 days. Since we also had students'
age, we were able to identify those respondents who engaged in
illegal underage drinking, and about 13 percent of our sample
fell in that category.
Those students who engaged in these illegal behaviors were
much more likely to view cooperating with police in any
situation as a form of snitching.
Senator Specter. Professor Frei, may we leave the
statistics for just a moment and talk about the psychological
phenomenon?
Dr. Frei. Okay.
Senator Specter. What is the origin of the disapproval of
someone who has been injured, robbed, beaten, observed a
homicide/murder, testifying? What is wrong with that to bring
social disapproval to it?
Dr. Frei. What we found in our survey is that students were
very concerned about how cooperating with police would
influence their reputation in the neighborhood they lived in.
Many of our students----
Senator Specter. Well, let's start with the simple
proposition.
Dr. Frei. Okay.
Senator Specter. You get disapproved, but is there
something wrong with that conduct? Identify any aspect of that
conduct which is wrongful.
Dr. Frei. That's wrongful?
Senator Specter. Yes.
Dr. Frei. In regards to what?
Senator Specter. What's wrong with reporting a crime,
especially if it's a crime against yourself?
Dr. Frei. What's wrong with reporting a crime?
Senator Specter. Somebody beat you on the head in a robbery
and you go to the police and you testify in court. Is that
person a snitch?
Dr. Frei. Well, actually, in our research we asked people
how they defined the term ``snitch,'' and what we found was
that nearly 50 percent of our students talked about any form of
cooperating with police at all as a form of snitching: picking
someone out of a line-up, answering police questions----
Senator Specter. Well, somebody will say anything about
anything. Now, my question to you, Professor, is a snitch
someone who is beaten in a robbery, identifies the perpetrator
and testifies in court?
Dr. Frei. In my definition, no. My definition of a snitch
is someone who testifies against someone else as a way of
reducing their sentence in a crime. That's the way I define it,
and that's the way the majority of our students define it.
Senator Specter. Well, if you don't have the motivation to
get a lesser sentence, you would not be a snitch?
Dr. Frei. I wouldn't define that as a snitch, but I think
the majority of people in Philadelphia would.
Senator Specter. I gave you the example of the guy who's
beaten on the head and robbed. Now, a witness who sees somebody
beaten on the head and robbed and he testifies, is he a snitch?
Dr. Frei. I wouldn't think he's a snitch, but I think that
there's a lot of people in Philadelphia that would consider
anyone who cooperated with police a snitch. Is your question
why is that?
Senator Specter. Well, is this an evolving view? When James
Cagney shot Humphrey Bogart in 1935 and said, ``You rat''----
Dr. Frei. I'm not familiar with the situation of why he
shot him in the first place. Was he testifying against?
Senator Specter. I'll tell you why he shot him: it was in
the script.
[Laughter.]
Senator Specter. It was a good movie. But my question to
you, aside from the illustration, which I'm surprised that a
man of your scholarly research didn't know about, was has the
disapproval of snitches gotten greater in 2005 contrasted with
1935?
Dr. Frei. I think it's certainly been marketed. I think
that part of it has to do with the fact that there are people
who are making money off of the Stop Snitching movement. That
certainly is a part of it. So in that regard, I think it's more
of a cultural thing because people are using it to make tee
shirts and to sell albums.
Senator Specter. OK. Mrs. Clowden's son sees a man dousing
her house with gasoline to burn her up, arson/murder. Is he a
snitch?
Dr. Frei. For reporting that?
Senator Specter. Yes.
Dr. Frei. No, I don't think so.
Senator Specter. But in the community, would he be
regarded----
Dr. Frei. I think in the community--well, you have to think
about it in the larger context. It's not just this community,
it's all communities. It's in the Senate. People in the Senate
don't like to have other people----
Senator Specter. Well, the question of this community, all
communities. Would he be regarded as a snitch?
Dr. Frei. In many circles, yes.
Senator Specter. Uh-huh. And why is that?
Dr. Frei. Why is that? Well, I think there are a number of
reasons. Let's look at the fact that very often groups like to
police their own. You know, I think----
Senator Specter. What's that? What's that?
Dr. Frei. To police their own. A lot of--you know, when we
did focus groups throughout the----
Senator Specter. I still didn't understand. To police what?
Dr. Frei. Police their own police. I mean, when we went out
in focus groups in the city----
Senator Specter. They want to police their own people?
Dr. Frei. Yes.
Senator Specter. As opposed to having the police department
police them?
Dr. Frei. Yes. Absolutely.
Senator Specter. Well, who's going to go after this guy who
commits the arson/murder?
Dr. Frei. Who is going to go after them? Many people in the
city would say that----
Senator Specter. Is there a posse in the neighborhood,
self-help?
Dr. Frei. We've seen that in the past. That's not uncommon
to happen. We saw that in Kensington recently where a man was
accused of molesting a child and a posse went after him. People
like to police their own group. The police don't like outside
people policing them.
Senator Specter. Let's stick with my examples, unless you
want to be elected and run your own hearing.
Dr. Frei. Are you requesting that I do that? That would be
good. I'd do that.
Senator Specter. If someone is considered a snitch because
they see this guy douse the house with gasoline, then perhaps--
or not perhaps. We ought to try to find some way to deal with
that kind of a mentality, which is wrong.
Dr. Frei. Uh-huh.
Senator Specter. How do we do that? You're a professor.
Dr. Frei. I'd say we start when they're young. One of the
things we found in our survey was that a lot of students were
told growing up that snitching was a bad thing, that
cooperating with police was a bad thing. You know, we think
it's being influenced by a lot of outside sources, so is the
family.
Senator Specter. Are you saying that's a prevailing culture
in this community?
Dr. Frei. I would say, as Commissioner Ramsey said, people
who are engaged in illegal behavior, even minor illegal
behaviors, are less likely to cooperate with police. So if, for
example, let's say you're a parent and you smoke marijuana. You
would tell your children, oh, make sure you don't cooperate
with police, it's bad to snitch, snitching's a bad thing. I
think in many ways this is not coming from outside sources. A
lot of times it comes from the family.
Senator Specter. Well, are you saying that it's a
prevailing attitude in Philadelphia?
Dr. Frei. Absolutely. It's a common attitude in
Philadelphia.
Senator Specter. Not distinguished by neighborhoods or
racial----
Dr. Frei. Or age. No. It's a----
Senator Specter. Just to cooperate with police?
Dr. Frei. Just to cooperate with police in general.
Senator Specter. How many in this room think that
cooperating with police is a bad thing to do and you'd be
classified as a snitch and you're doing something bad to
cooperate with police; would you raise your hands?
[Showing of hands.]
Senator Specter. How many of you think that to cooperate
with police and report a crime is something that you ought to
do?
[Showing of hands.]
Ms. Hines. If someone is classified as a snitch, then they
could.
Senator Specter. And still be classified as a snitch?
Ms. Hines. The way you posed the question was a little----
Senator Specter. Consider yourself under subpoena and step
forward so we can hear you.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Hines. Hi. My name's Erica Hines. It is the correct
thing to do, to tell if you see a crime. However, that doesn't
change the fact that the people in your community around with
you will view you as a snitch. So your question was how many
people think it's wrong, or how many people think that it's
snitching to tell the police. I think that I would always
cooperate with the police and I would tell the police whatever
I knew if it could help someone. However, that doesn't mean
that the people around me in my neighborhood would not view me
as a snitch, they would. So your question is sort of two-fold.
Did I say that right?
Senator Specter. Would you feel bad about being considered
to be a snitch?
Ms. Hines. Personally, I don't. But I'm also--I mean, I'm a
35-year-old woman who is an attorney, who, no, I would not feel
bad about it. But I understand that my 21-year-old brother
would feel awful.
Dr. Frei. I mean, you also have to understand that people
rely on their--and in a lot of these neighborhoods where
there's not a strong family structure in a lot of these
families, they rely on their neighborhood to survive. You rely
on the people who are your neighbors to get through the day,
especially if you live in a violent neighborhood.
Senator Specter. There are a lot of neighborhoods with a
strong family structure. Are you saying that in neighborhoods
with a strong family structure, that people consider it being a
snitch to cooperate with the police?
Dr. Frei. I would say that it's not a precursor to it, but
certainly at least having a family structure to fall back on
for support--you know, if I cooperated with a crime, if I saw a
crime and I cooperated, my family would support me.
Senator Specter. Usually when I listen to an answer I try
to figure out whether it's yes or no. I couldn't find your
answer out at all.
Dr. Frei. So, repeat the question again.
Senator Specter. In a neighborhood with a strong family
structure, would they consider cooperating with police to be a
snitch?
Dr. Frei. They'd be less likely. I'll say that.
Senator Specter. You're still dodging, Professor.
Dr. Frei. I can't say no. I mean, I'm sure there are
people--and our study found this, too. There were people who
came from strong families who still consider cooperating with
police being a snitch. I think they are less likely. In
psychology we don't like to give yes or no answers, it's more
or less likely.
Senator Specter. Well, you have identified a problem of
sufficient intensity that it requires a response, in my
opinion. I want to study it further, but it requires a
response. The response may be, very directly, to instruct
children in school that there's a duty to cooperate with law
enforcement, where somebody--where they're a witness to
something which is wrongful conduct, and that it is not
something to be ashamed of, to cooperate with police, but
something that ought to be done.
So if law enforcement breaks down because of some misguided
notion about being a snitch, it's something we have to deal
with. What do you think, Mr. Coard? I ask you there because
you're nodding yes, otherwise I wouldn't have asked you.
Mr. Coard. I think first we need to define what snitching
is. From my standpoint, snitching is not telling the police
when you witness a crime. That's simply being a good citizen.
Snitching is when you're one of the criminals and you get
caught and you tell on your compatriots. That's snitching.
That's the textbook definition of snitching.
I mean, they say there's no honor among thieves, and maybe
there isn't any honor among thieves. But from my standpoint,
snitching has a specific definition. Unfortunately, most people
don't know what it is, but snitching does not mean telling the
police when you see a crime. It means being a criminal and
telling on your partners.
Senator Specter. Well, that is an acceptable definition for
social conduct, I would say. But I would take it one step
further. Frequently somebody will testify against a co-
conspirator to get a reduced sentence, and of course that is
sanctioned by the law.
Mr. Coard. Yes.
Senator Specter. That is encouraged. Do you think that the
person who tells the truth against a co-conspirator to get a
lesser sentence himself or herself is doing something wrong?
Mr. Coard. Doing absolutely nothing wrong, doing everything
right. A snitch nonetheless, but doing everything right.
[Laughter.]
Senator Specter. Well, it's been very illuminating. Thank
you very much, Mrs. Clowden, Mr. Canada, Mr. Coard, and
Professor Frei.
What the Subcommittee is going to do, is examine these
issues further. One action is to try to encourage and support
grants to cities like Philadelphia for witness protection
programs. Another line would be my inclination, after some
further study, to propose Federal legislation to make it a
Federal crime to intimidate a State court witness. That turns
on whether it's involved in interstate commerce. You can't take
something which is purely local. But criminals move in
interstate commerce, and I think that would be upheld. I think
it would be socially desirable.
My conclusion from the witnesses' testimony and my own
experience is that people are a lot more apprehensive about
being charged with a Federal crime when the FBI comes in and
appearing before a Federal judge, where the cases are better
prepared, they do have more resources, the sentences are
longer, and the continuances are much tougher to get and cases
don't go on for years. When the DA is criticized in
Philadelphia for a conviction rate which turns on witnesses who
do not appear because they are intimidated, that's not the DA's
fault.
But I think there is a gigantic problem in Philadelphia
today called witness intimidation, tragic stories told by Mr.
Clowden and Mr. Canada, tragic stories. Beyond the personal
tragedy for their own families, it's a breakdown of the
criminal justice system. When murderers get away with it
because witnesses are intimidated, there's no evidence, as we
heard in the testimony, that's a total breakdown of the rule of
law and that's an appropriate role for the Federal Government
to come and help out.
Thank you all very much. That concludes our hearing.
[Whereupon, at 11:13 a.m. the hearing was concluded.]
[Submission for the record follow.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57937.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57937.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57937.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57937.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57937.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57937.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57937.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57937.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57937.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57937.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57937.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57937.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57937.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57937.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57937.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57937.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57937.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57937.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57937.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57937.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57937.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57937.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57937.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57937.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57937.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57937.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57937.027