Felicity Muniz
Tricia Fidler
Writing 111
November 24, 2015
Justice Shall Not Be Served
The United States legal system exists to ensure safety, liberty, and justice to its citizens. It does so by enforcing an established set of laws that U.S. citizens are expected to abide by. When the laws of the country are not upheld, penalties are distributed accordingly. The legal system was created with the purpose of bringing about justice, but recent actions have shown that it is not fulfilling its purpose. Many aspects of the court system prohibit it from ensuring that justice is served. Witness intimidation, witness badgering, the use of private criminal defense attorneys, and the inclusion of testimony from children compromise the proceedings of the court and ultimately result in an unjust legal system.
Witness intimidation can be defined as “trying to get a witness to lie, say certain things under oath, alter or destroy evidence, or not testify or cooperate with authorities at all.” (CriminalDefenseLawyer). Criminals take particular interest in exercising this tactic in order to avoid sentencing. They rely heavily on threats to inflict fear into the witness, rather than subjecting them to physical harm. Offenders intimidate witnesses in ways such as calling them in the middle of the night and hanging up, puncturing their tires, or leaving dead fish in unexpected places for them to find (O’Flaherty and Sethi). Witnesses can also be intimidated without any direct threats or contact. They fear tarnishing their reputation by speaking out against offenders of the law. An example used in O’Flaherty and Sethi’s “Witness Intimidation” was rapper, Lil’ Kim. She faced jail time for lying under oath to avoid being branded as a snitch for admitting to having witnessed individuals at the scene of a shoot-out. This shows that witness intimidation is both directly and indirectly present in the U.S. justice system. It is openly present when criminals directly threaten a witness and indirectly present when witnesses feel intimidated by the mere thought of the repercussions they will be faced with if they testify. Statistics obtained in the Bronx show “36 percent of victims and witnesses said they had been threatened, 57 percent of those who had not been explicitly threatened feared reprisals, and 71 percent of witnesses said they would feel threatened if the defendants were released on bail.” (O’Flaherty and Sethi). The previous survey was based on unsuccessful attempts at witness tampering. When it is successful, authorities are not made aware of the misconduct and, therefore, cannot document it.
Witness intimidation has a direct negative effect on both the safety of the witness and the sanctity of the legal system. When witnesses choose to openly testify in court despite the threats they have received, they are putting their lives at risk. When witnesses are coerced into giving the court false testimony or not testifying at all, justice is thrown out the window. Offenders are not punished because of the false testimony or lack of testimony from a witness. Therefore, the law is being disregarded and mocked as a result of witness intimidation.
Witness badgering occurs when a lawyer harasses, is unnecessarily hostile to, or is combative with a witness (LII). Although it is frowned upon in the courtroom, many defense attorneys exercise this form of questioning to break the witness. The approach of breaking the witness is taken to ensure that the witness will become overwhelmed and tell the questioning attorney what they want to hear. Badgering the witness is grounds for an objection from the prosecution and is not accepted by the judge unless permission was previously established. In such a case, the judge will grant the defense attorney the right to treat witnesses hostilely based on certain circumstances – e.g. the witness is a suspect in the case. Witness badgering is not favored in the courtroom because it has a negative effect on the witness. Rather than “breaking” the witness to obtain the truth, defense attorneys use this tactic to intimidate the witness into saying what they want the court to hear. Their goal is to harass the witness with a repeated line of questioning so that the witness will say anything to end the attorney’s interrogation of them. When a forced testimony is given and turns out to be false, the law is not being upheld. Attorneys obtain the statement that they need to win their case and the criminal that they were defending is set free, thus, illustrating the corruption present in the U.S. legal system.
In 1987, an incident occurred in Howard Beach, Queens, New York in which an African-American man was killed and another was beaten by four white teenagers (BlackPast). One of the defense attorneys used a hostile line of questioning with one of the black men that was present during the incident. The attorney asked questions relating to his past attempting to paint him out to be an unfavorable man in the eyes of the jury. He continuously badgered the witness using a loud and aggressive tone to break him resulting in recesses and multiple warnings from the judge. Despite the warnings, the attorney succeeded in “cracking” the witness and he exploded in a rage using profanity and street language (NewYorkTimes). This can cause a jury to view a witness in a negative light and regard them as unreliable. If the case was built on the eyewitness testimony of this one man, guilty defendants would have been set free as a result of an aggressive lawyer swaying the thoughts of a jury. Antagonistic criminal defense attorneys are another example of corruption in the justice system.
The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is as follows, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” Originally the inclusion of this amendment meant that anyone who could not afford an attorney would be convicted and sentenced, whether they were guilty or not. It was later recognized that a defendant is not granted their due process rights without legal representation. The Miranda Rights, which were established in 1968, include the phrase “You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.” They were established as a direct result of the court case, Miranda v. Arizona, in which the defendant confessed to the crime he was being charged with. His conviction was overturned because it was suspected that during police interrogation of him, he was intimidated into confessing to the crime because he did not have legal representation. This case set the foundation for one of the most important aspects of the U.S. legal system. It was taken a step further with the inclusion of private defenders. It is a known fact that, “Less experienced attorneys set lower fees than their more experienced colleagues.” (NOLO). The same concept applies when discussing public defenders; they cost less than private defenders. Court appointed attorneys are standard and provide the same representation to each case they are assigned to. This process keeps court proceedings generally fair and just. However, private attorneys provide much better legal representation to their clients. This is positive for defendants that might have been framed for a crime they did not commit, but negative to guilty clients who pay a great amount of money to ensure their acquittal.
A prime example of an attorney’s manipulation of the law is the OJ Simpson verdict in 1995. He was accused of murdering his wife and the court was presented with numerous accounts of evidence that proved he was physically and verbally abusing her and stalking her days before her murder (Lacayo). The evidence consisted of witness testimonies, a personal narrative written by Simpson’s wife, photographs of the marks his physical abuse left on her, and extensive DNA evidence discovered at the scene of the crime. Despite outstanding evidence such as this, Simpson’s defense team was able to have some of it thrown out of the evidence pool permitted to be presented to the jury in court and belittle that which remained. They presented his case to the jury in a way that made them believe that there was not enough evidence to convict. OJ Simpson was found not guilty on all counts and justice was overlooked.
An individual’s treatment under the law should not be determined based on how good their lawyer is. Defense attorneys examine every detail of a case and use it to their advantage. They did so in this case by using his image in the public eye to their advantage ensuring that the jury continued to view him in a positive light and avoid seeing his hidden rage. They also disregarded and twisted evidence to work in their favor. Simpson’s not guilty verdict is proof of how the proceedings of the court depend upon the capability of one’s lawyer. His defense team worked hard to obtain this verdict because they were paid to do so. “’Top defense lawyers generally charge a flat fee, and the fee for a celebrity lawyer in a capital case can start at $500,000,’ said Charles L. Lindner, past president of the Los Angeles Criminal Bar Association.” (NewYorkTimes). According to the previous quote, Simpson’s team of about 10 defense attorneys set him back millions. This is a blatant disregard of justice in the U.S. legal system because it shows that with financial capability, one could hire an attorney that would help them get away with murder. The outcome of a trial depending heavily on the skill of a defense attorney is ridiculous.
The justice system designed their proceedings to cater to adult witnesses. The face-to-face confrontation of a witness and the defendant and the advanced line of questioning that the defense will proceed with were not meant for children. Children are not reliable witnesses in court for many reasons. They do not fully understand what it means to be under oath, so they lie to avoid “getting in trouble” or to protect someone they love – e.g. a family member who might have sexually assaulted them. As a PBS article suggests, “They can be led to incorporate false suggestions into their accounts of intimate bodily touching if these suggestions are made by powerful adult authority figures, delivered over prolonged periods.” The cycle of deception arises in children as young as two. They are more likely to make false statements because they do not know any better.
Children are more easily intimidated in court because their minds are not fully developed or strong enough to withstand a trial. Witness badgering comes into play when a child is on the stand. Defense attorneys are firm and persistent when seeking the truth, or at the least the truth they are looking for. They have an advantage over the witness because they can ask questions in a way that will confuse the child. They can ask the same question in a different manner, which will most likely result in the child producing a different response. Witness intimidation is also at work when a child is a witness because they can be easily manipulated and forced into testifying what they are instructed to say. Children are unable to take into consideration the consequences of perjury and, therefore, are less likely to produce an accurate testimony as a result of fear.
Children should not be subjected to the language that is used in court. It is explicit, detailed, and potentially scarring to a child’s developing mind. According to Lucy Hudson and Patricia Hrusa Williams, “Adults find such situations anxiety-provoking at best; children can easily be traumatized.” The previous quote states how adults’ minds are more capable of understanding and coping with the violent or explicit nature of a trial, while children have underdeveloped minds that cannot process their surroundings in the same mature manner. The courtroom is no place for a child because they can disrupt or delay proceedings by acting out. It is a mature and serious environment, not fit for adolescents. This is backed up by the quote, “It's very distracting. Children cry. They run around. Parents concentrate on the children instead of the case and everything takes longer. They go back and forth between Mommy and Daddy like it's a tug-of-war. Not to mention the mess they make. I've seen children bite court officers. I've seen children watch as parents hyperventilate or go into cardiac arrest.” (Hudson and Williams). Coming face-to-face with the defendant can also have traumatizing effects on a child witness.
Shield laws were enacted in order to protect a child who is testifying. Shield laws consist of “permitting a child witness to testify behind a one-way screen that occludes the child's view of the defendant but not the defendant's view of the child, or testifying over one-way video.” (PBS). These laws aid child witnesses while also carrying out the rights of the defendant. Congress passed these laws to address an issue that is clearly present in the U.S. legal system. The testimonies of child witnesses are not reliable and should not be called upon in open court. The incorporation of shield laws into court proceedings is a step in the right direction because they make children feel safer, which will result in them producing a more accurate testimony. Research also shows that children who experience violence at a young age are more likely to engage in violent acts as teenagers and adults (Hudson and Williams). Continuing the cycle of misconduct only furthers the lack of justice in the U.S. “justice” system.
In a 2013 statutory rape case, Cassandra Smith and Christopher Hickler were charged with engaging in sexual activity with a 13-year old girl while under their care (Stevenson). The charges were brought against the couple in 2011 when the adolescent made her statement to the police. It was not until 2013 when the actual trial had taken place (Silvestri). As a result of the two-year gap between the adolescent’s original statement to the police and her testimony in court, the child had suppressed the traumatic experience. The Sixth Amendment protects the rights of the defendant by guaranteeing a speedy trial. However, no law clearly states the effects of a delayed trial on a witness’ testimony. As previously mentioned, forced face-to-face encounters with their attackers can have negative effects on child witnesses. In this particular case, the 13-year-old girl had trouble facing the man and woman who had assaulted her, as well as the entire courtroom. The reasons behind this reaction were based on fear and humiliation. The defense attorney presented the young girl with a line of questioning that she was not prepared to answer. They asked her explicit questions such as “Can you describe what happened when the defendant, Christopher Hickler, ‘allegedly’ sexually assaulted you?” and required that she answer them in a manner such as “He put his penis in my vagina.” (Silvestri). The defense attorney asked questions that would confuse or humiliate the child in order to produce the response he was looking for.
Expecting such detailed and blunt testimony from a 13-year-old girl in open court is cruel. The witness proved to not be mature or emotionally stable enough to testify in front of a jury, the defendants, and countless onlookers. The differences that the defense attorney pointed out between her original statement and the way in which she was answering questions in court provided the jury will reasonable doubt. They found the defendants not guilty, acquitted them of all charges, and the case was closed (WFMZ). Justice was not served and two sexual offenders were set free as a result of the poor testimony of a child witness. This case illustrates how unreliable the testimonies of children are.
It can ultimately be concluded that the United States justice system needs to be redesigned. Witness intimidation compromises the safety of witnesses willing to testify despite threats and the sanctity of the court when witnesses give coerced false testimony. Although repercussions are in place for criminals found tampering with a witness, they are not thoroughly enforced. The penalty for said crime – imprisonment for no more than 20 years – should be harsher and better executed to inflict more fear into the intimidator. Witness badgering results in wrongful convictions or unprecedented acquittals due to aggressive attorneys. The current solution for this tactic are objections by the prosecution, recesses called by the judge, or warnings from the judge. The consequence for badgering a witness should be harsher, as well. The use of highly experienced private criminal defense attorneys gives an unfair advantage to a defendant with the financial means to hire one. They put more effort into their cases and getting their clients acquitted. Although all private attorneys have the right to set their fees at whatever they feel their worth is, this should be monitored so that less fortunate individuals can have the chance to be expertly represented. The inclusion of testimony from child witnesses in open court is unreliable and harmful. Children are more easily frightened by defense attorneys and can become intimidated into giving false testimony. They are also more likely to become traumatized by facing their defendant or suppressing events that are crucial to their testimony. For this reason, shield laws were created. These are just a few of the many unjust aspects of the U.S. legal system that need to be addressed and corrected to ensure that justice will one day be served.
Works Cited
Berman, Sara J., and Paul Bergman. "Paying a Private Criminal Defense Attorney – Cost of
Defense." Nolo. Nolo, n.d. Web. 17 Nov. 2015.
Ceci, Stephen J., and Eduardus De Bruyn. "Child Witness in Court: A Growing Dilemma." PBS.
PBS and WGBH/Frontline, n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2015.
England, Deborah C. "Witness Intimidation." CriminalDefenseLawyer.com. NOLO, n.d. Web.
12 Nov. 2015.
Evans, Angela D., and Kang Lee. "Emergence of Lying in Very Young Children."
Developmental Psychology 49.10 (2013): 1958-1963. PsycARTICLES. Web. 12 Nov. 2015.
Hartley, Richard D., Holly Ventura Miller, and Cassia Spohn. "Do You Get What You Pay for?
Type of Counsel and Its Effect on Criminal Court Outcomes." Journal of Criminal
Justice. Vol. 38. N.p.: SciVerse ScienceDirect Journals, 2010. 1063-070. Print.
Hudson, Lucy, and Patricia Hrusa Williams. "Children in Court: A Troubling Presence." Child
Welfare 74.6 (1995): 1223-1236 14p. CINAHL Complete. Web. 12 Nov. 2015.
Lacayo, Richard. "Scenes from a Bad Marriage. (O.J. Simpson Murder Trial)." Time. Cengage
Learning, Inc, 23 Jan. 1995. Web. 17 Nov. 2015.
Mack, Dwayne. "Howard Beach Incident (1986) | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed."
BlackPast. BlackPast, n.d. Web. 07 Dec. 2015.
Mydans, Seth. "Meter's Ticking for Costly Simpson Defense." The New York Times. The New
York Times, 30 July 1994. Web. 17 Nov. 2015.
O'Flaherty, Brendan, and Rajiv Sethi. "Witness Intimidation." The Journal of Legal Studies. Vol.
39. Chicago: U of Chicago, 2010. 399-432. Print.
Shipp, E. R. "Goal of Defense Lawyer: Make the Witness Crack." The New York Times. The
New York Times, 19 Oct. 1987. Web. 17 Nov. 2015.
Silvestri, Alexandria. Personal Interview by Felicity Muniz. 07 Dec. 2015.
Stevenson, Keith R. "Coolbaugh Couple Accused of Having Sex with Girl, 13, Will Head to
Court." PoconoRecord. Local Media Group, 23 Feb. 2012. Web. 15 Nov. 2015.
"18 U.S. Code § 1512 – Tampering with a Witness, Victim, or an Informant." LII / Legal
Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2015.
"Badgering the Witness." LII / Legal Information Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2015.
"Cassandra Smith and Christopher Hickler Acquitted of All Charges." WFMZ. WFMZ, 18 Feb.
2013. Web. 08 Nov. 2015.
"History of Miranda Warning." MirandaWarning. MirandaWarning, n.d. Web. 17
Nov. 2015.
"Speedy Trial." American Bar Association. American Bar Association, 2015. Web. 11 Nov.
2015.
"What Are Your Miranda Rights?" MirandaWarning. MirandaWarning, n.d. Web. 17 Nov. 2015.