Victim and Witness Intimidation:  New Developments and Emerging Responses.


Series: NIJ Research in Action
Published: October 1995
31 pages
66,543 bytes

Victim and Witness Intimidation:
New Developments and Emerging Responses

by Kerry Murphy Healey

Kerry Murphy Healey, Ph.D., is a consultant to the
Law and Public Policy Area of Abt Associates Inc.,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
----------------------------
-----------------------------
Highlights

Prosecutors in some jurisdictions report an
increase in victim and witness intimidation: some
prosecutors have estimated intimidation as a
factor in 75 to 100 percent of the violent crimes
committed in some gang-dominated neighborhoods.
This Research in Action summarizes recent
developments in gang- and drug-related
intimidation of victims and witnesses, current
responses to the problem by police and
prosecutors, and emerging models and strategies
for its prevention and suppression. 

The nature of intimidation

o  Gang- and drug-related intimidation may be
case-specific or communitywide. The wholesale
intimidation of neighborhoods can be as harmful to
witness cooperation as an explicit threat made
against an individual. Each case-specific act of
violence against victims or witnesses promotes the
communitywide perception that any cooperation with
the criminal justice system is dangerous. 

o  Factors that contribute to the reluctance of
witnesses to step forward include fear, strong
community ties, or a deepseated distrust of law
enforcement. Community members may also consider
gang and drug crimes as outside the scope of their
concern or responsibility.

o  Factors that increase the likelihood of
intimidation include the violent nature of the
initial crime, a previous personal connection to
the defendant, geographic proximity to the
defendant, and membership in a culturally
vulnerable group. 

Police and prosecutor approaches

o  Traditional approaches to the problem of victim
and witness intimidation include warnings to the
defendant concerning obstruction of justice laws,
high bail, aggressive prosecution of reported
intimidation attempts, and, in extreme cases,
threatened individuals' entry in the Federal
witness security program.

o  Some innovative interventions to gang- and
drug-related intimidation include emergency
relocation and support for threatened
witnesses,innovative courtroom security measures,
interagency cooperation to move threatened
witnesses who reside in public housing to new
areas, secure segregation of intimidated victims
and witnesses in correctional facilities, and
community outreach and collaboration among
criminal justice, social service, and community
groups.

o  Emerging strategies also emphasize intimidation
prevention and control through community outreach
based on community policing and prosecution
approaches and enhanced communication among law
enforcement, prosecutors, and the judiciary.

Target audience: Prosecutors; law enforcement
officials; criminal justice researchers in the
fields of prosecution, community policing, and
criminal gangs; judges; and providers of victim
services. 

Intimidation of victims and witnesses undermines
the functioning of the justice system by denying
critical evidence to police and prosecutors. This
long-standing problem also erodes confidence in
the government's ability to protect citizens.
Victim and witness intimidation has usually been
associated with organized crime and domestic
violence cases. But this form of intimidation is
developing new characteristics as its occurrence
increases in urban drug- and gang-related violent
crime. 

Intimidation can be characterized as:

o Case-specific--threats or violence intended to
dissuade a victim or witness from testifying in a
specific case. 

o Communitywide--acts by gangs or drug-selling
groups intended to foster a general atmosphere of
fear and noncooperation within a neighborhood or
community. 

The wholesale intimidation of neighborhoods by
gangs or drug-selling groups can be as harmful to
witness cooperation as an explicit threat against
an individual. Communitywide and case-specific
intimidation may operate separately or in tandem.
However, each case-specific act of violence
against victims or witnesses by gangs or
drug-selling groups promotes the communitywide
perception that any cooperation with the criminal
justice system is dangerous.

This Research in Action is based on structured
interviews with 32 criminal justice professionals
from 20 urban jurisdictions, including
prosecutors; victim services directors; Federal,
State, and local law enforcement officers; judges;
and scholars.1  Also included are the insights
offered by a working group of 20 criminal justice
professionals, who met in September 1994 to
exchange information on emerging responses to the
problem of victim and witness intimidation. The
preliminary findings of this National Institute of
Justice-sponsored project indicate many recent
developments in the nature of witness and victim
intimidation and a wide range of existing and
emerging strategies to address the problem. 

Characteristics of victim and witness intimidation

Most interview respondents estimated that more
victims were murdered and otherwise intimidated in
domestic violence cases in their jurisdictions
each year than in gang or drug crime-related
intimidation attempts. Respondents and working
group members agreed that intimidation in domestic
violence cases is different in nature from
gang-related intimidation because of the close
relationship between domestic partners and the
near universality of intimidation in domestic
violence cases. However, respondents agreed that
intimidation associated with gang- and
drug-related violent crime was escalating, while
intimidation linked to domestic violence was
continuing at a steady rate. 

The extent of the problem. A number of prosecutors
linked the increase in violent victim and witness
intimidation to the advent of gang-controlled
crack sales in the mid- to late-1980's. As crack
sales grew, some urban prosecutors noted an up-
turn in gang- and drug-related homicides.2 Several
prosecutors estimated that today victim and
witness intimidation is suspected in up to 75-100
percent of the violent crimes committed in some
gang-dominated neighborhoods.3

The 1992 National Crime Victimization Survey
suggests that in neighborhoods not plagued by
gangs and drug sales, fear and intimidation play a
much less significant part in the failure to
cooperate with police and prosecutors.4 The
discrepancy between the perception of urban police
and prosecutors and the findings of the National
Crime Victimization Survey is important: victim
and witness intimidation is endemic in
neighborhoods infested with gang activity and drug
sales and virtually invisible to people outside
those neighborhoods. The majority of citizens
outside gang-dominated neighborhoods learn about
victim and witness intimidation only through the
media.

Victim and witness intimidation resists
quantitative analysis, but some data are emerging
that give a clearer picture of the problem. A
decade ago, commentators noted that only
unsuccessful intimidation attempts ever came to
the attention of police or prosecutors.5 Today,
prosecutors report that extremely violent
intimidation attempts--which are almost always
successful--are coming to their attention with
increasing frequency. These extremely violent
intimidation attempts are often gang- and
drug-related. 

A recent national assessment of gang prosecution
sponsored by NIJ provides important new data
supporting anecdotal estimates of the prevalence
of victim and witness intimidation offered by
police administrators and prosecutors.6 According
to this assessment, 51 percent of prosecutors in
large jurisdictions and 43 percent in small
jurisdictions said that the intimidation of
victims and witnesses was a major problem, while
an additional 30 percent of prosecutors in large
jurisdictions and 25 percent in small
jurisdictions labeled intimidation a moderate
problem.

Causes of individuals' reluctance to be witnesses.
Examples of mass intimidation given by police and
prosecutors (see "No One Is Willing to Testify" at
end of file) suggest that fear is only one factor
contributing to the reluctance of witnesses to
step forward; strong community ties and a
deep-seated distrust of law enforcement may also
be strong deterrents to cooperation. The
communities in which many of these gangs operate
are often worlds unto themselves--places where
people live, attend school, and work, all within a
radius of only a few blocks--from which they
rarely venture out. More importantly, victims and
witnesses usually know the gang members and
defendants against whom they are asked to testify;
typically, victims and witnesses are the children
of the gang member's friends or relatives, members
of the same church, classmates, or neighbors.
Furthermore, the community may regard many of the
crimes for which witnesses are sought as private
business matters among gang members or drug
dealers, not crimes against the community. 

Both case-specific and communitywide fear of
retaliation are fed by the growth of powerful
prison gangs whose members return quickly to the
community because of brief sentences or are able
from behind bars to arrange for friends or family
members to threaten any potential witnesses. Due
to the uninterrupted connections between
incarcerated and neighborhood gang members,
victims and witnesses no longer feel that
imprisonment of the defendant pending trial or
after conviction can ensure their safety in the
community. The knowledge that gangs have easy
access to members of the community deters many
witnesses at once. Prosecutors noted that the mere
fact that a crime is gang- related is often
sufficient to prevent an entire neighborhood from
cooperating. Communitywide intimidation was the
most frustrating type of intimidation for
prosecutors and police because, even if no
actionable threat is ever made, witnesses and
victims are still deterred from testifying.
Prosecutors and police emphasize that the general
atmosphere of intimidation and violence common to
drug- and gang-dominated neighborhoods--including
frequent personal exposure to drive-by shootings,
armed robberies, and drug sales--is itself
sufficiently intimidating to dissuade many
witnesses from testifying.

Targets of victim and witness intimidation. No
typical victim of intimidation exists, but
interview respondents and working group
participants pointed to four factors that increase
the chance that a victim or witness will be
intimidated:

o The violent nature of the initial crime.
o A previous personal connection to the defendant.
o Geographic proximity to the defendant.
o Cultural vulnerability--that is, membership in
an easily victimized group, such as the elderly,
children, or recent or illegal immigrants.


Residents of gang-dominated neighborhoods are
likely to fall into more than one of these
categories, greatly increasing their exposure to
intimidation.

Most nonviolent crimes (such as drug sales or use,
burglaries, or white collar crimes) rarely involve
victim and witness intimidation. By contrast,
victims and witnesses in violent crime cases (such
as rape, murder, and gang assaults), where more
severe penalties may be imposed, are at higher
risk of experiencing intimidation.

In general, victims and witnesses who have no
previous relationship and share no community ties
with the defendant or suspect are better insulated
from intimidation. Victims and witnesses who have
been--and stay--relocated and are able to keep
their home and work addresses secret are also
generally immune to intimidation. Prosecutors and
police considered it extremely rare for a
defendant or associate to leave his or her own
community or socioeconomic milieu to intimidate a
victim or witness in another jurisdiction.

Given these characteristics of victim and witness
intimidation, prosecutors who handle primarily
nonviolent or white collar crimes may be largely
unaffected by victim and witness intimidation,
even in jurisdictions in which intimidation is
rampant in isolated neighborhoods. But prosecutors
who specialize in gangs, homicide, violent
felonies, domestic violence, and child abuse often
confront issues related to victim and witness
intimidation on a daily basis.

Types of victim and witness intimidation

Intimidation of an individual or a community may
involve many of the same tactics, including
physical violence, explicit or implicit threats of
physical violence, property damage, and courtroom
intimidation. Attempts by gangs or drug dealers to
promote community-wide noncooperation may include
the execution, assault, or public humiliation of
victims or witnesses (or their families) suspected
of cooperation, and random public acts of extreme
brutality intended to terrify potential witnesses.


Explicit threats of physical violence. Prosecutors
and police reported a high incidence of threatened
physical violence either against victims or
witnesses or their families. These respondents
stated that threats of violence were much more
common than actual violence but were often just as
effective in deterring cooperation because, in
gang- and drug-dominated communities, such threats
are credible. Prosecutors said that threats
against the victim's or witness's mother,
children, wife, or partner were particularly
effective forms of intimidation.

Physical violence. While some incidents of
physical violence were reported by respondents in
all 20 jurisdictions, physical violence was
reported to be much more common in some
jurisdictions than others. In addition, estimates
of the frequency of physical violence varied even
within the same jurisdiction, depending on the
responsibilities of the individual interviewed.
Prosecutors and police in eight urban
jurisdictions reported that violent acts of
intimidation--including homicides, drive-by
shootings, knee-cappings, and beatings--occur on a
daily or weekly basis.

Indirect intimidation. A third common form of
intimidation, reported in almost every
jurisdiction, involved indirect intimidation, such
as gang members parked outside the victim's or
witness's house, nuisance phone calls, or vague
verbal warnings by the defendant or his or her
associates.

Property damage. Only slightly less common than
the three types of intimidation described above
was intimidation involving the destruction of
property. Property destruction can involve
drive-by shootings into a victim's or witness's
house, fire bombing of cars, burning houses, or
hurling bricks through the window of a car or
home.

Courtroom intimidation. Another common form of
intimidation involved threatening looks or
gestures directed by the defendant to the witness
in the courtroom during the preliminary hearing or
trial. Court-packing by members of a gang can be a
particularly effective form of intimidation. Gang
members demonstrate solidarity with the defendant-
-and make clear their readiness and ability to
harm the witness--by wearing black (symbolizing
death) or using threatening hand signals. Because
the judge and prosecutors may not understand the
meaning of the gestures or other nonverbal
threats, they may overlook these explicit attempts
to intimidate the witness. In other cases, the
judge is aware of what the gang members are doing
but feels that ejecting the individuals from the
courtroom would violate the defendants'
constitutional right to a public trial.

Other forms of intimidation. Less common forms of
intimidation that prosecutors and police reported
include economic threats (in domestic violence or
fraud cases) and threats concerning the custody of
children, deportation, and the withholding of
drugs from an addicted victim or witness or from
addicted members of the person's family.

Primary actors in victim and witness intimidation 

Interviews with prosecutors, police officers, and
working group members pointed to the types of
individuals who most commonly intimidate victims
and witnesses: the defendant, his or her family,
gang members (where the crime is gang-related),
and non-gang friends and associates of the
defendant.

Other types of individuals reported to be involved
in intimidation included neighbors who condone or
profit from the illegal activity of the defendant
(such as drug sales), inmates in the same
correctional facility as an incarcerated victim or
witness, and, infrequently, defense attorneys
hired by gang members.

Some prosecutors expressed concerns about witness
information that was given to defendants,
including, in some instances, confidential court
papers. In many jurisdictions, prisoners have
unmonitored access to phones, and their
correspondence is not screened, making it easy for
even incarcerated defendants or offenders to
arrange intimidation attempts using improperly
obtained information. Some gangs are said to hire
attorneys to represent incarcerated witnesses who
may be in custody as a result of the crime in
question or on another unrelated charge. The gangs
hire these lawyers without the witness's knowledge
or consent in an effort to control the witness's
testimony.

There was no consensus among the individuals
interviewed about which of the four principal
types of intimidators was most frequently involved
in victim and witness intimidation. They did agree
that, in smaller jurisdictions and domestic
violence cases, the intimidator was most likely to
be the defendant. However, if victim and witness
intimidation is known to be aggressively
prosecuted in a given jurisdiction, then the
primary actors often become the gang, family, or
friends of the defendant.

In general, defendants having a sophisticated
understanding of the criminal justice system are
much less willing to engage in any direct
intimidation attempts. This is particularly true
where the defendant is in custody prior to trial.
One prosecutor in Washington, D.C. reported
success in discovering victim and witness
intimidation by executing search warrants in
prison when defendants were arranging an
intimidation scheme through written correspondence
with family or gang members on the outside.

In gang cases, intimidation is rarely carried out
by the defendant himself; other gang members take
on this responsibility. Gangs may be ruthless in
their self-protection: sometimes the incarcerated
gang member himself may be seen as a potential
threat to the gang and targeted for intimidation
or execution.

Traditional police and prosecutor strategies

Prosecutors observed that when offenders discover
that intimidation enables them to avoid conviction
and incarceration (see "Timing of Intimidation"),
intimidation attempts increase and become more
violent. However, victim and witness intimidation
does not seem to hamper successful prosecution if
a reluctant but cooperative witness can be offered
security by prosecutors, police, or victim
services workers. Nevertheless, interview
respondents were able to identify very few
comprehensive witness security programs; most
jurisdictions that confront the problem have only
ad hoc arrangements to provide security for
victims and witnesses threatened by gangs and drug
sellers. As a result, both prosecutors and police
voiced frustration that a growing number of
serious cases, including shootings and homicides,
are not being presented for prosecution at all due
to widespread gang- and drug-related intimidation.
Traditional approaches to the problem of victim
and witness intimidation include:

o Warnings by the prosecutor and the defense
counsel to the defendant concerning obstruction of
justice laws.

o High bail.

o Aggressive prosecution of reported intimidation
attempts. 

o Entry of threatened individuals in the Federal
witness security program--typically in extreme
cases involving organized crime (see "Federal
Efforts to Combat Intimidation" at end of file).

The strict requirements for entry to the Federal
witness security program, the high cost of
providing lifelong services to witnesses and their
families, and the personal sacrifices involved in
participating in the program have led a number of
prosecutors and police to seek shorter-term, less
demanding, and more economical approaches to local
witness security.

A traditional approach to the intimidation
experienced by victims of domestic violence is the
use of civil restraining orders and the provision
of limited counselling and other services.
However, only three jurisdictions relied solely on
these types of interventions to combat gang- and
drug-related victim and witness intimidation. 
The other 17 jurisdictions made at least some use
of nontraditional responses discussed in the
section "Innovative approaches." 

The role of victim services programs

Almost all jurisdictions provided some support
services for victims and witnesses through the
prosecutor's office or another local government
agency. Most of these programs were founded in the
1970's and 1980's in response to increased concern
for victims' rights, the Federal Victim and
Witness Protection Act of 1982, American Bar
Association recommendations regarding victim
services, and the Federal Victims of Crime Act of
1984 (VOCA). These initiatives, taken together,
prompted a number of States to adopt victims'
"Bill of Rights" legislation, which, in many
States, mandated the provision of specific
services to victims and, in some cases, provided
for limited compensation for medical expenses and
other damages resulting from the crime.10 The
degree of protection and services these programs
offer to victims and witnesses varies widely from
State to State, and even among prosecutor offices
within the same State.

Currently, victim services programs or units in
prosecutor offices provide a logical base for the
extension of services to victims of gang-related
intimidation. As a result, prosecutors often turn
to victim services staff for assistance. However,
few programs are currently organized or funded to
coordinate the temporary relocation, financial
support, job and welfare services, and community
outreach programs needed by these victims and
witnesses. The result is that most victim services
programs lack the resources to address victim and
witness intimidation, especially communitywide
intimidation.

In a majority of jurisdictions, victim services
programs provide assistance to victims of domestic
violence, rape, and violent crime, and, to a
lesser degree, to survivors of homicides. It is in
relation to serving the victims of violent crime
and homicide survivors that victim services
agencies have become exposed to the 
increasing problem of gang and drug crime-related
intimidation.

A few programs have begun using VOCA funds, State
victim aid funds, private grant monies, and
additional funding from local government sources
to piece together services to assist prosecutors
in retaining intimidated witnesses and combat
communitywide intimidation (see "Family
Bereavement Center" at end of file). 

Other programs provide additional services to
gang-intimidated victims and witnesses without
additional funding. In such cases little
institutional support may exist for these
programs' work, and the existence of the services
may depend on one person's continued involvement.
For example, one victim services director reported
spending weekends caring voluntarily for the child
of one witness--a drug abuser--and wearing a
beeper so that she was constantly in touch with
her other clients.

More typical, however, were the concerns expressed
by overworked advocates in one large urban
jurisdiction that many more intimidated victims
and witnesses were in need of protection than
could be helped and that limited funding prevented
any outreach efforts to reassure intimidated
communities. In particular, the advocates cited a
need for outreach and intimidation protection for
the Asian community, the elderly, and illegal
immigrants.

Innovative approaches

In the absence of programs or protocols to guide
the protection of victims and witnesses from
gang-related intimidation, prosecutors and law
enforcement have taken five principal ad hoc steps
to provide protection in violent crime and
gang-related cases:

o Emergency relocation and support.
o Longer-term relocation, sometimes involving
interagency cooperation to move threatened
witnesses or victims in public housing to new
areas.
o Pretrial and courtroom security measures.
o Protective custody for victims and witnesses who
are in prison.
o Community outreach.

Emergency relocation and support. While funding
for housing and food for intimidated victims and
witnesses is scarce, most prosecutors have access
to some money for emergency and longer-term
relocation, if the intimidation is sufficiently
severe and the witness's testimony is essential to
winning the case. Some prosecution offices were
much more sophisticated and organized about these
efforts than others. Several jurisdictions relied
on the fact that victims and witnesses with jobs
or strong family support systems could often be
placed with relatives or friends, or moved out of
State for short periods at limited cost to the
prosecutor. By contrast, one prosecutor uses a
highly organized emergency and longer-term
relocation program administered by the victim
services unit, with the prosecutor's office
bearing only administrative costs of the program
and State and Federal agencies paying $600,000 in
annual relocation costs.

Emergency relocation needs are most frequently met
by housing intimidated witnesses and their
families in secure hotels or motels. Witnesses are
often registered under false names, and payment is
not made directly by the prosecutor's office or
other easily identifiable government agencies.
Because the cost of this sort of emergency
relocation accumulates rapidly, prosecutors
reported using hotels and motels only in the most
serious cases, where immediate relocation was
essential.

Longer-term relocation. In many cases, a
longer-term, more independent relocation is needed
following emergency relocation. Prosecutors and
police reported working closely with the local
public housing authorities to:

o Relocate victims and witnesses swiftly from one
public housing development into another. 

o Place witnesses from public housing in private,
subsidized housing.

o Qualify poorly housed witnesses for some form of
housing assistance.

In each of these instances, police and prosecutors
sought housing that was a safe distance from the
threat; in some cases, housing resources in other
cities, counties, or States were used.

Some respondents had worked with the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
to secure Section 8 certification for intimidated
victims and witnesses. Section 8 certification
qualifies low-income families to receive vouchers
to subsidize private housing costs, in lieu of
placement in public housing. Police and
prosecutors considered placement in subsidized
private housing to be more secure in some cases
than the relocation of intimidated victims and
witnesses within the public housing system,
because gang members and drug dealers are usually
reluctant to enter the types of middle-class
neighborhoods in which Section 8 units are
typically located. Although some jurisdictions are
able to take advantage of these outside resources,
many jurisdictions rely exclusively on the
prosecutor's office for funding emergency and
longer-term relocation, and others are unaware of
any State or Federal funding for witness
protection and relocation.

In addition to housing and some financial support
(such as a food allowance, money for
transportation, or anything else essential for the
witness and his or her family), emergency and
longer-term relocation usually involves some level
of heightened police protection. None of the
jurisdictions contacted was able to fund constant
police protection for an intimidated victim or
witness, but most reported that they had some
arrangement with law enforcement for checking on
the victim or witness several times a day or for
providing the victim or witness with a beeper or
special contact number to ensure rapid police
response. Prosecutors and police administrators
emphasized that if the relocation is genuinely
confidential, there should be no need for
additional police protection; it is only when the
new address of the victim or witness is disclosed
that there is any danger.

Differing opinions on relocation. Different
jurisdictions appeared to have different needs in
terms of witness relocation. In some jurisdictions
prosecutors emphasized that entrenched, national
gangs made it essential to provide witnesses with
permanent relocation services. However, many
prosecutors noted that the lives of gang members
were so insular that simply moving a victim or
witness to another building or housing complex in
the same neighborhood would often provide
sufficient protection (see "D.C. Emphasis on
Short-Term Relocation" at end of file).

By contrast, prosecutors in Los Angeles emphasized
that anything less than a permanent, long-term
witness relocation program would be irresponsible
in their jurisdiction. Los Angeles prosecutors
gave numerous examples of witnesses who were
killed after leaving witness security programs and
returning to their old neighborhoods.

Thus, when designing a relocation program for
intimidated witnesses, prosecutors considered the
type of gang threat faced by witnesses. Permanent
relocation--although always preferable--may not be
essential in jurisdictions where gangs are loosely
organized, small, and poorly established. However,
in jurisdictions where gangs are entrenched in
communities--areas where several generations may
have participated in gang activity, or where
national, highly organized gangs dominate--
permanent relocation of threatened witnesses is
essential to ensure safety.

Los Angeles prosecutors point out that permanent
relocation is not a long-term commitment by the
prosecutor or police to support witnesses
financially, but rather an agreement to establish
them in a secure environment where they are
expected to provide for their own support. Of
course, should a further threat to the witness
arise, the police or prosecutor has a
responsibility to re-establish the person in a
safe location.

Judicial policies that assign a high priority to
the expeditious resolution of cases involving
intimidated victims and witnesses can further
reduce the cost of providing all types of
emergency and longer-term relocation.

Pretrial and courtroom security measures.
Prosecutors and police described an array of small
safety measures that have been undertaken to
decrease victim and witness intimidation in and
around the courtroom:

o Provision of a separate waiting area for victims
and witnesses--a relatively common practice. In
some jurisdictions, however, the witness waiting
area and the defendant and public waiting areas
are separate but not secure--simply a room or area
set apart.

o Safe transportation to and from court. One
victim services advocate noted that her clients
were afraid to use public transportation when
traveling to the courthouse. In extreme cases, the
witness may attend court under guard.

o Use of metal detectors and covered windows to
protect victims and witnesses.

o Video cameras taping people coming into the
courtroom to discourage gang attendance at trials.
Gang members who are on probation want to avoid
documentary evidence of their association with
known gang members--typically a violation of
probation conditions that could land them in jail.

Another innovative courtroom approach was the
formation of community support groups for victims
and witnesses who wished to testify. The support
group attends the trial so that the witness sees
friendly as well as threatening faces in the
audience. A variation on this approach was to
interview and bring in large numbers of witnesses
from a community to testify--one prosecutor
brought 100 grand jury witnesses into the
courtroom in a case against drug gangs operating
in a housing project. Despite the amount of work
involved for the police and prosecutors, this
approach had the dual advantage of providing
increased security for the witnesses and building
community solidarity. Following another approach,
a police inspector reported scheduling the annual
visit to court of a uniformed police cadet class
to coincide with a trial in which witnesses had
already been intimidated by a strong gang presence
in the courtroom. 

Several jurisdictions expressed interest in
finding legal ways to shield the victims' or
witnesses' identities and addresses up to or
throughout their appearance in court. To prevent
would-be intimidators from figuring out who the
key witnesses were, some prosecutors tried to
reinterview key witnesses in the company of large
numbers of less important or even uncooperative
witnesses. One jurisdiction used remote testimony
on closed circuit television to interview
witnesses. Some prosecutors found videotaped grand
jury testimony and audiotaped witness statements
to be particularly useful for discouraging
witnesses on the stand from altering their
testimony once their identities were about to
become known.

Protective custody for victims and witnesses in
prison.11 While witnesses in government cases
constitute only a small part of the Federal and
local prison population, prosecutors considered
protective custody a valuable tool for assisting
incarcerated victims and witnesses. The
cooperation of incarcerated witnesses is often
essential in gang- and drug-related cases. One
prosecutor favored the use of incarcerated
witnesses in gang trials rather than witnesses at
liberty because it rendered useless--and therefore
minimized--gang efforts to intimidate members of
the community who were innocent of any criminal
offense. Most prosecutors tried either to arrange
some form of protective custody for incarcerated
witnesses or to transfer them to a facility where
the defendant was not housed. Prosecutors also
arranged for witnesses to be transported to court
separately from the defendant. In New York City,
however, a gang prosecutor noted that procedures
used to place inmates in protective custody, or
separate one inmate from another, may draw
attention to the fact that inmates are witnesses
and, therefore, endanger them more than if they
were allowed to maintain anonymity in the general
prison population.

Community outreach. Prosecutors had attempted to
collaborate with a broad range of law enforcement,
social service, and community groups in their
efforts to combat victim and witness intimidation.
Jurisdictions had undertaken cooperative efforts
with local housing authorities, the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), various
U.S. Attorney Offices, the Federal Bureau of
Prisons, jails in neighboring counties, shelters,
domestic violence groups, the Travellers AID
Society, the YMCA, rape crisis groups, and
homicide survivor groups.

Several prosecutors had begun limited community
outreach efforts, including public speaking
engagements aimed at educating teachers, guidance
counselors, community groups, and elderly Asian
immigrants about victim and witness intimidation.
One prosecutor had appeared on a Spanish-language
radio station to discuss cases in which his office
was seeking witnesses.

Emerging models and strategies

A few jurisdictions have begun to build on the
traditional practices, victim services, and ad hoc
strategies described above to construct
comprehensive programs for the security of victims
and witnesses. These programs formalize
relationships between the prosecutor's office and
law enforcement agencies, community groups, and
social service agencies. In addition, the programs
specify procedures for determining which victims
and witnesses will receive a given level of
security and services, and what the funding source
for these services will be. Comprehensive
strategies also emphasize intimidation prevention,
through community policing and community outreach,
education, and empowerment.

Key elements of witness security and assistance12
build on many of the areas discussed earlier, such
as basic victim services, access to emergency and
long-term relocation, and community outreach. Not
only do they build on existing strategies, but
they call for protocols for interagency
cooperation and enhanced legislation. A special
emphasis is placed on intimidation prevention and
control through cooperation among law enforcement,
prosecutors, and the judiciary.

The following efforts at developing a
comprehensive plan are at an early stage of
development and have not been evaluated; the next
pages highlight the major aspects of emerging
strategies for witness security and assistance.

Protocols for interagency cooperation. Current
witness protection programs emphasize the value of
formalized, cooperative relationships among the
prosecutor's office, local enforcement agencies,
social service agencies (especially those
concerned with housing and public assistance), the
FBI, Federal agencies such as HUD, and local
counselling groups and shelters. The specific
agencies with which agreements are needed may vary
from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but the
agreements should identify the services to be
provided, the agencies that will bear the cost,
and the allowable expenses or services. The
agreements should be used to speed and coordinate
emergency services to victims and witnesses, and
to place a broader array of resources at the
disposal of the prosecutor.

Enhanced basic victim services. All prosecutors
recognized the value of basic victim services
(such as providing emergency short-term relocation
assistance) for allaying many of the nonspecific
fears of victims and witnesses. Ideally services
available to all witnesses who need them should
include the following:

o  Emergency and longer-term counselling.
o  Assistance with victim compensation, where
appropriate.
o  Information concerning the criminal justice
system.
o  Notification concerning important trial dates
and the outcome of trials.
o  A specific contact person who can assist the
victim or witness with intimidation concerns
throughout the trial and relocation.
o  A 24-hour emergency contact number.

One additional service recommended by working
group participants was the funding of secure
debriefing rooms, remote from police stations and
prosecutor offices, for victims and witnesses who
were not participating in temporary relocation.
Participants had used hotel rooms and even boats
as secure locations to interview intimidated
victims and witnesses.

Increased access to emergency and longer-term
relocation. Another need that prosecutors
recognized was the ability to provide additional
methods for swift, emergency, and longer-term
security for intimidated victims and witnesses.
Some jurisdictions reported needing to relocate
witnesses only a few times a year, but others
needed to move victims and witnesses daily. An
effective emergency and longer-term relocation
program would provide a secure residence,
transportation to the new site, some food money if
needed, counselling, speedy access to social
services, and enhanced police protection. A
long-term program might also assist witnesses in
finding employment. The prosecutor's office should
not be considered under any obligation to provide
services beyond those in the security agreement,
except where a renewed or continued threat
requires additional assistance. All prosecutors
funding relocation of witnesses emphasized the
need to have a clear agreement concerning what
services are to be provided and a limit to the
length of time that the government is responsible
for funding living expenses and other witness
needs.

Enhanced legislation. A recent ordinance in the
District of Columbia that increased penalties for
obstruction of justice was considered essential to
better victim and witness security in that
jurisdiction. Many prosecutors and police across
the country suggested that setting higher
penalties for intimidation, requiring that
penalties be served consecutively, and exacting
higher bail and tighter bond restrictions would be
useful. Another concern of prosecutors and police
was the legal barriers inhibiting the exchange of
information among criminal justice agencies
concerning the records and gang affiliations of
minors. Although no consensus was reached
concerning the best approach to this difficult
privacy issue, study participants agreed that, as
gangs used younger and younger children to
facilitate drug sales and even executions, some
method of tracking juvenile gang offenders was
essential. 

Community empowerment. In another approach to
empowering communities, prosecutors and police
educate tenant and community groups about civil
remedies they can use to regain control of their
neighborhoods, and they provide contacts with pro
bono legal workers who might assist with the
injunctive relief process. Prosecutors and police
have also assisted some tenant groups to establish
"gate checks" at housing projects with gang and
drug problems. By providing an added measure of
security, the gate check volunteers have been
expected to "keep the good tenants in" and
discourage admission to outside gang members who
had no family or contacts in the building.
Community awareness. Almost every respondent
emphasized the need for better public relations
for victim and witness security and assistance
efforts. Many respondents believed that, despite
the seriousness of the victim and witnesses
intimidation problem, public perceptions of the
dangers involved in testifying were exaggerated.
For this reason, both prosecutors and victim
services counselors felt that once a workable
model for victim and witness protection was in
place, it would be critical to take the program to
gang-dominated communities and inform law-abiding
residents of the services and safeguards available
to them. Police and prosecutors from all parts of
the country emphasized the need for special public
relations efforts (combined with community
outreach) to give Asian and illegal immigrant
communities information about the American
criminal justice system and about immigration law.
It is important, however, that police and
prosecutors not promise a level of safety that
they are not absolutely sure they can provide. In
some jurisdictions, injured victims and witnesses,
or the families of murdered victims and witnesses,
have successfully brought civil lawsuits against
prosecutors and police, alleging that witnesses
were inadequately warned about the danger of
testifying. Large damages have been awarded in
some cases.13

Intimidation prevention and control

Prosecutors, law enforcement, and the judiciary
have critical roles to play in any program to
prevent victim and witness intimidation. Law
enforcement officers are better positioned than
prosecutors to foresee and prevent intimidation at
the street level. Law enforcement officers can
inform prosecutors about repeat offenders
andpotential intimidators, alert prosecutors to
potential witnesses who are being intimidated, and
reduce gang income and intimidation by disrupting
gang operations with intensive policing tactics.
In one small jurisdiction, community police
officers found it effective to visit the families
of potential intimidators and explain the laws
concerning obstruction of justice. In another
community where intimidation was severe, police
officers were able to reassure tenants in
gang-dominated housing projects by establishing
field precincts in empty apartments or store
fronts, or by bringing in a mobile precinct, in
order to decrease response time. In one
jurisdiction where a comprehensive witness
security program was being established by the
prosecutor's office, police reported approximately
200 violent, gang- and drug-related crimes that
had not been presented to the prosecutor due to
witness intimidation. With better communication
between police and prosecutors, these witnesses
might have been persuaded to enter the new witness
security program and testify.

Community outreach. Community outreach is critical
to establishing cooperative relationships with
potential witnesses and preventing intimidation.
Both prosecutors and police need to find ways to
build confidence in gang-dominated communities
that witness security is available (see "Community
Policing and Community-Based Prosecution"). A
number of outreach strategies were considered
promising:

o  Community policing.

o  Assigning prosecutors to specific communities
or police units.

o  Vertical prosecution of cases involving gangs
or victim intimidation (i.e., one prosecutor or
team of prosecutors assumes responsibility for a
case from start to finish).

o  Aggressive gang suppression.

o  Matching the cultural knowledge and linguistic
skills of law enforcement and outreach personnel
to that of the neighborhoods they serve.

Finding outreach personnel who can communicate
with intimidated victims and witnesses in their
own language is especially important in the case
of recent immigrants and non-English speaking
residents, who may not be aware of their rights
and the services available to them.

Cooperation with the judiciary. In jurisdictions
where the judiciary takes threats against victims
and witnesses seriously, prosecutors were much
more confident in their ability to deter
intimidation and secure witness testimony.
Prosecutors and police suggested that gang-related
victim and witness intimidation could be reduced
in court when judges were knowledgeable about gang
characteristics and were willing to exclude
members who wore identifying colors or made
threatening hand signs. In some jurisdictions,
additional judicial resources were made available
to expedite cases where victim and witness
intimidation had become a factor. Prompt
disposition of cases involving victim and witness
intimidation not only reduces the opportunity for
intimidation before and during trial, but also
conserves witness protection resources, allowing
more victims and witnesses to benefit from
short-term relocation or security services.

Additional considerations 

In establishing a comprehensive witness security
and assistance program, participants in this
project offered specific ideas that could be
considered in planning and implementing such a
strategy:

o  Find a highly qualified leader. An effective
witness security and assistance program needs an
energetic, dedicated leader knowledgeable about
legal issues, the local gang problem, victim
rights, and the needs of concerned intimidated
communities. Effective leaders can be found in any
agency, and the program can be housed with the
leader in the police department, in the
prosecutor's office, or with existing victim
services programs.

o  Have the program protocols endorsed by public
officials at the highest level. In order to secure
the greatest possible cooperation from public and
private agencies, the mission of the witness
security program and the protocols for interagency
cooperation should be presented to the highest
ranking local officials for their public
endorsement and support. These officials may
include the mayor, the city council or other
governing body, the administrative judge, the
district attorney, the police commissioner or
chief, the heads of local social services and
public housing, the superintendent of schools,
church leaders in the target communities, and any
other community leaders whose cooperation may be
important.

o  Design a manual to meet the needs of
prosecutors, police, and victim services workers.
Once cooperative agreements and procedures are
developed to implement a new witness security
plan, it is important that the information be made
available in a simple, clear format for every
individual and group that may need to use the
program. Sample court or administrative papers
could be provided to prosecutors seeking funding
authorization for protective services; resource
and contact lists should be easily accessible.

o  Build an evaluation design into any new
program. While the effectiveness of victim and
witness intimidation prevention efforts is not
easily assessed by traditional quantitative
research methods, it is essential to identify what
measures may be meaningful barometers of program
impact. Some working group participants suggested
that surveys of attitudes in gang-dominated
communities might be used as a measure of program
success. Other approaches may be to monitor
prosecutor and police perceptions of the problem
and to ask participants in the witness security
program to comment on the program's effectiveness.
Whatever tools are used, evaluative data are
critical to securing continued or increased
funding and to determining how the program needs
to be improved.

o  Make use of established gang suppression
techniques. Gang-related victim and witness
intimidation cannot be addressed effectively in
isolation from the larger issue of gang
suppression. Police and prosecutors who specialize
in gang crimes offered the following suggestions
for dealing with gangs:

o  Become familiar with the most current
literature on gangs and gang suppression.14

o  Make technology an ally. Gang prosecutors
recommended the use of gang-tracking software and
the computerized identification of bullets
involved in gang incidents, so that crimes using
the same guns may be linked, even when those
crimes may have occurred outside the boundaries of
a given neighborhood or community policing
district.15

o  Target top gang members and repeat offenders
for aggressive prosecution. Gang prosecutors
suggested that the aggressive prosecution of all
crimes committed by top gang members and by repeat
offenders linked with gangs helped to disrupt gang
activity in intimidated neighborhoods.

o  Maximize the number of defendants indicted in
each gang case. Prosecutors in one of the toughest
urban jurisdictions advised that indicting large
numbers of defendants in each gang case benefits
the community by disrupting gang activity and drug
sales on the street. Community-wide intimidation
is reduced because more indicted or incarcerated,
gang-affiliated witnesses are available to
testify, in lieu of potentially vulnerable
community residents.

o  Focus on truancy reduction as a means of
controlling juvenile gang participation. Gang
specialists noted the connection between truancy
and gang involvement in some neighborhoods. Active
law enforcement support for truancy reduction
programs may reduce intimidation.

o  Seek long-term, renewable funding sources to
support witness protection programs. Individuals
contacted for this project advised that short-term
or nonrenewable funding had closed a number of
promising criminal justice initiatives in their
jurisdictions. Where adequate funding is not
available from local sources, working group
participants suggested exploring possibilities for
funding from local or Federal drug-related asset
forfeiture programs; contacting the local FBI
office for loans of equipment or other resources;
cooperating with Federal agencies, such as HUD and
the U.S. Marshal's Service; establishing
cooperative agreements with local agencies and
programs; and applying for free technical
assistance from agencies such as the National
Victim Center (NVC) in Arlington, Virginia (703)
276-2880. 

Gang-related victim and witness intimidation is a
serious, growing concern for prosecutors, judges,
police, and victim services workers, but, as this
study has demonstrated, innovative and proactive
interventions are beginning to emerge. 

Notes

1. Because none of the recently-established
practices discussed by the interview respondents
and working group members has been formally
evaluated, these practices are offered only as
examples of current practice. Once these practices
have been in operation for a longer period,
further study can determine their effectiveness.
The following 20 jurisdictions were contacted for
this project. The number of individuals
interviewed in each jurisdiction (either in person
or by phone) is indicated in parentheses:
Baltimore City, Maryland (1); Borough of
Manhattan, New York (1); Borough of Queens, New
York (4); Bridgeport, Connecticut (1); Brockton,
Massachusetts (1); Charlotte, North Carolina (1);
Chicago, Illinois (3); Cleveland, Ohio (1); Dade
County, Florida (1); Detroit, Michigan (1);
Houston, Texas (2); Kansas City, Missouri (2); Los
Angeles, California (2); Missoula, Montana (1);
Montgomery County, Maryland (1); Oakland,
California (1); Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (1);
Portland, Oregon (1); San Francisco, California
(1); and the District of Columbia (5).

2. Some research findings support the perceived
connection between gang activity and certain
violent crimes, such as murder and aggravated
assault in specific neighborhoods. See
Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and
Chronic Juvenile Offenders: Program Summary.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, June 1994,
p. 31.

3. Although there is no recent research to
substantiate these estimates, a 1990 study by the
Victim Services Agency in New York City concluded
that 36 percent of victims and witnesses studied
in the Bronx Criminal Court in 1988 had been
threatened; 57 percent of those who had not been
threatened feared reprisals; and 71 percent of all
respondents said that they would feel threatened
if the defendants were out on bail. Davis, Robert
C., et al. Victim/Witness Intimidation in the
Bronx Courts: How Common Is It, and What Are Its
Consequences? Unpublished monograph, Victim
Services Agency, June 1990.

4. The National Crime Victimization Survey reports
that the percent of victims of violent crimes who
cite "fear of reprisal" as the main factor in
failing to report crimes is small--3.8 percent for
violent crimes involving a stranger and 5.6
percent for violent crimes involving
non-strangers. However, the survey does not
include data on homicide witnesses. Criminal
Victimization in the United States, 1992. Bureau
of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice,
March 1994.

5. Stark, James and Howard W. Goldstein, The
Rights of Crime Victims. New York: Bantam and
American Civil Liberties Union, 1985.

6. Johnson, Claire, Barbara Webster, and Edward
Connors, "Prosecuting Gangs: A National
Assessment," Research in Brief, National Institute
of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, February
1995. The study surveyed a total of 192
prosecutors, 80 percent of whom said that gangs
were a problem in their jurisdiction although the
definition of gang varied from State to State.
Other related findings include: 94 percent of
local gangs in large jurisdictions and 84 percent
of gangs in small jurisdictions committed violent
crimes and trafficked in drugs.

7. For related data, see Handgun Crime Victims,
Special Report. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S.
Department of Justice, July 1990.

8. Statement of Gerald Shur, Senior Associate
Director, Office of Enforcement Operations,
Criminal Division, before the Subcommittee on
Crime and Criminal Justice, Committee on the
Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives,
concerning witness intimidation, August 4, 1994. 

9. The problem of victim and witness intimidation
was also highlighted by the American Bar
Association and the Victim Services Agency, New
York City, in the early 1980s. See, American Bar
Association, Criminal Justice Section. Reducing
Victim/Witness Intimidation: A Package.
Washington, D.C.: American Bar Association, 1982;
and, Connick, Elizabeth and Robert Davis,
"Examining the problem of witness intimidation."
Judicature, 66, 439-447, 1983. 

10. Stark and Goldstein, The Rights of Crime
Victims.

11. A 1991 study of protective custody in adult
correctional facilities found that 5.6 percent of
all U.S. prison inmates were in some form of
protective custody. Henderson, James D. Protective
Custody Management in Adult Correctional
Facilities. Washington, D.C.: National Institute
of Corrections, 1991.

12. The term "security and assistance" is
preferable to "protection" because the phrase
"witness protection" suggests a higher level of
financial maintenance and policy commitment than
is possible in most jurisdictions. Furthermore,
the term "protection" may create unrealistic
expectations on the part of victims and witnesses,
opening the door to claims of civil liability
against police departments, prosecutor offices, or
the city or county, should such efforts fail to
protect the victim or witness adequately.

13. While litigation is not common nationally,
cases were reported in Los Angeles, California;
Washington, D.C.; and Florida. See Carpenter v.
City of Los Angeles, 230 Cal. App. 3rd 923, 1991,
where the court awarded 1.2 million dollars to a
witness who was not warned that the defendant in a
robbery case had contracted to have him killed.
The witness, Carpenter, was subsequently wounded
by the defendant, and the police officer who had
failed to warn Carpenter was fatally shot by the
defendant following his own testimony in the case.
See also Wallace v. City of Los Angeles, 12 CAL
APP 4th 1315, 1993, which established a duty to
protect a witness enlisted to testify, even if the
case is later declined, and awarded the plaintiff
$750,000 in damages.

14. Working group participants recommended the
California District Attorneys Association's Gang
Resource Guide, available by calling (916)
443-2017; studies by Irving Spergel and Ron
Chance; and publications available through the
National Criminal Justice Reference Service
(NCJRS), Rockville, Maryland, (800) 851-3420. For
a discussion of gang suppression techniques, see
Ehrensaft, Kenneth, Prosecutors Model, unpublished
monograph prepared for the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S.
Department of Justice, 1993.

15. Gang prosecutors recommended the use of gang
member tracking soft ware, the "Gang Tracking
System," developed by and available from the Los
Angeles County Sheriff's Department by calling
(310) 603-3106.
---------------------------
No One is Willing to Testify

Prosecutors and homicide investigators are now
faced with crimes in which there are numerous
known witnesses--and in many cases known
perpetrators--but no one is willing to testify. 

o  A drug-related shooting occurs at a softball
game; three players are killed in full view of the
spectators, but no cooperative witnesses can be
found.

o  Drug-selling gangs regularly commandeer public
housing buildings or complexes--removing
legitimate tenants from their apartments,
threatening or bribing management, and terrorizing
the elderly. According to a homicide detective in
the San Francisco Bay area, the victimized tenants
do not resist or report the takeovers, because
gang members tell them "you can be dead" in the
time it would take the police to respond.

o  Such bold attempts at communitywide
intimidation are not limited to the largest
jurisdictions. A similar drug-related takeover of
a public housing complex was reported by housing
police in a jurisdiction with a population of only
600,000. 

Law enforcement officers in the District of
Columbia estimated that for each of the
approximately 500 homicides reported in 1993,
there were 4 to 5 intended victims who were shot,
but survived, and another 15 to 25 intended
victims who were shot at, but not hit.7 If one
considers that each of these victims and intended
victims is linked to families and neighbors, it is
possible to envision how entire communities can be
silenced quickly by gang intimidation.
---------------------------------
Timing of Intimidation

Prosecutors and police agreed that, in general,
the most dangerous time for a victim or witness is
between arrest and trial. The long trial delays
experienced in most jurisdictions allow ample
opportunity for intimidation. The second most
dangerous period for victims and witnesses is
during the trial itself. Very few intimidation
attempts are made at the scene of the crime
(although violent crime is in itself intimidating)
or at the time of arrest. However, in cases
involving communitywide intimidation, intimidation
begins the moment the victim or witness is aware
that the crime is gang- or drug-related.
--------------------------------
Federal Efforts to Combat Intimidation

In the late 1960's, the U.S. Department of Justice
recognized that victim and witness intimidation
had become a serious impediment to obtaining
testimony in organized crime cases.8 In response,
Congress enacted the Organized Crime Control Act
of 1970, laying the basis for the Federal witness
security program that operates today under the
Witness Security Reform Act of 1984. In 1982, the
Victim and Witness Protection Act expanded Federal
laws regarding witness security and victim
services by establishing significant penalties for
witness tampering, intimidation, and harassment;
providing for civil restraining orders;
authorizing restitution for crime victims; and
outlining Federal guidelines for the fair
treatment of victims and witnesses.9

The Federal Witness Security Program currently
provides comprehensive protective services--
including new identities, relocation, employment
assistance, and protective custody (for
incarcerated witnesses)--to witnesses in Federal
cases involving organized crime, racketeering,
drug trafficking, and other serious felonies, as
well as to some State-level witnesses in similar
types of cases.
---------------------------------
Family Bereavement Center

The Family Bereavement Center in Baltimore,
supported by a VOCA grant, provides victim
assistance and counselling for family members of
homicide victims, many of whom are residents of
neighborhoods dominated by local gangs and
out-of-State drug dealers. Graduates of the
program have recently organized a civic group to
combat violence in their communities. The Family
Bereavement Center and programs like it address
witness security by fostering trust and
communication between victimized community
residents and the prosecutor's office, thereby
decreasing the impact of communitywide
intimidation.
---------------------------------
D.C. Emphasis on Short-Term Relocation

Prosecutors, police administrators, and victim
service professionals in Washington, D.C.,
emphasized that short-term relocation--a few days
to a year--has been adequate to protect most
intimidated victims and witnesses, due to the
small size and loose organization of most gangs or
"crews" in their jurisdiction. In their
experience, long-term relocation, like that
provided by the Federal witness security program,
is not necessary in most local intimidation cases.
They estimated that in most of their cases
relocation for between 4 months and 1 year was
enough to carry the victim or witness past the
critical stages of trial preparation and
testimony. In the District of Columbia, witnesses
have been able to return to their communities
without retribution after the conclusion of a
trial.

Police and prosecutors in Washington, D.C., noted
practical advantages to short-term relocation.
Victims and witnesses are rarely willing to sever
alo ties with their community, abandon jobs, and
never again see old friends and relatives. When
asked to make these sacrifices, many witnesses may
not help the prosecutor because:

o  They decided that cooperation is too onerous.

o  They agree initially to relocate but then
endanger themselves by recontacting friends or
relatives from their old community. As one
prosecutor observed, "people want to be safe in
their own homes, not have to move."
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
Community Policing and Community-Based Prosecution

One of the most important elements of intimidation
prevention is community policing, and when
possible, community-based prosecution. The
advantages of community policing and prosecution
are many:

o  Prosecutors and police are able to build
long-term relationships with citizen and tenant
groups, and these contacts are likely to lead to
witness cooperation.

o  A consistent police and prosecutor presence
helps to build a greater sense of trust and
accountability between the community and the
criminal justice system.

o  Community prosecutors and police are more
likely to see links between related cases and to
detect new crime trends before they have the
opportunity to develop fully.

o  Community prosecutors and police are better
attuned to the needs of victims and witnesses from
their jurisdictions, and can work with victim
services representatives to design programs that
respond to local concerns.
--------------------------------
-----------------------------------
The National Institute of Justice is a component
of the Office of Justice Programs, which also
includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Bureau
of Justice Statistics, Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for
Victims of Crime.

NCJ 156555