How do we fix the police ‘testilying’ problem?

[VUPDblue]

I often have to read my report in the hours leading up to a trial or hearing just so I can remember the incident. I write very detailed reports and I'm confident in my recollection of an incident after reading a report, though I have had to say "I do not recall" more than once under examination because I simply do not remember...especially if its been a long time.

 

[VUPDblue]

here is an example of a bad report:
[video=youtube;a75u3ske8MY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a75u3ske8MY[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a75u3ske8MY

 

[arthrimus]

In 2013 I made nearly 2500 traffic stops, over 200 arrests and wrote nearly 200 non-arrest reports. Are you saying that I should be REQUIRED to remember every detail of each of those interactions? Thats lunacy...and impossible.

Then, with all due respect, what is the point of even testifying if it is impossible to remember the incident.

 

[VUPDblue]

I didn't say that it was impossible to remember the incident. Without refreshing the memory, like by re-reading the original report, it would be impossible to remember every detail about every incident. Reading reports and/or seeing pictures helps remember even un-documented details of an incident. It doesn't mean that one is making those memories up, just having the incident refreshed.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Then, with all due respect, what is the point of even testifying if it is impossible to remember the incident.

I see 450 patients a month. I can get sued for three years. See the problem? You read your documentation. If it isn't documented, it didn't happen...

 

[arthrimus]

I see 450 patients a month. I can get sued for three years. See the problem? You read your documentation. If it isn't documented, it didn't happen...

Ok so I guess what I am asking is, if the documentation of the incident is the only reliable source of information from the perspective of the officer, then why have the officer testify that he remembers these details which he may very well not? Shouldn't the report alone suffice as officer testimony for the court? Doesn't placing an officer on the stand and questioning him on details that he may or may not remember encourage him to "remember" new details that would sway the case in his favor?

It seems like the report written at the time of the incident would be a much more reliable source of information than whatever the officer can remember six months later.

 

[VUPDblue]

"...has the right to confront his accuser..."

 

[cobber]

Here's a pretty egregious example...Jeanine Nicarico murder case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seven DuPage County law enforcement officials, three prosecutors and four deputies, were indicted by a grand jury in December 1996 on charges of conspiracy to convict Cruz despite being aware of exculpatory evidence. After numerous proceedings, in June 1999 all seven had been acquitted for framing the men.

Not talking bad memory here...

 

[Destro]

Doesn't placing an officer on the stand and questioning him on details that he may or may not remember encourage him to "remember" new details that would sway the case in his favor?

Not really, if he doesn't remember, then he doesn't remember. An officer shouldn't be "remembering" new details that could sway the case on the stand, it should be in the report. If you do happen to remember something important that you might have left out, then the prosecutor needs to be made aware before you take the stand. Prosecutors will beat it into your head NEVER LIE. It's his/her job to make the case to the judge/jury. Misremembering an event can happen to anybody, lying will make you a "Brady Cop"

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Sounded so confident in what happened only to have the dash cam prove him wrong.

Expand IRE617!

Ok, time to get off my soapbox but I believe it to be the obvious solution.

 

[CTS]

How about starting with "I have no recollection of that" responses? "I may have or may not have ________."

How about requiring, as a condition of employment as a LEO, mandatory annual memory drills to confirm that the person enforcing the laws is actually capable of remembering basic facts of their own cases beyond the 6 months to a year time frame between the events and the trials? I had an officer in my case directly contradict his own arrest report on the stand. If you can't remember your own arrest report after a year, you don't need to be putting people's safety or liberty at jeopardy based on your failing powers of recollection.

I was once deposed as a defendant in a lawsuit over a traffic accident I was in when I was 18 (essentially won by the way, they got less than their legal costs), and the deposition was about 1.5 years after the accident had actually occurred. He kept asking me questions about specific streets I turned on in a city I didn't know very well and other very specific questions. I could have "tried my best" to remember and potentially be wrong or I could have just said, "I don't remember" which was true. A lot of court proceedings probably take place quite a bit of time after the arrest actually happened and the officer has likely participated in many other situations that could be easy to confuse after so much time. Outside of having their notes to jog their memory, I can imagine it's difficult. I would rather an "I don't recall" than an attempt to give an answer "to the best of their recollection" wouldn't you?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Why are you always so defensive?

Guilty conscience?

Actually, I can easily sympathize with Frank here. Much in the same way that I can get a bit edgy about having an entire subset of police hunting me on account of my occupation, in this situation, he has a number of people who have had negative (some to the extent of criminal behavior on the part of the police) experiences with police to the point that in reading through threads on the subject, he feels constantly under attack. The absence of a reprieve can have that effect on a person. On that note, I will admit that a couple of weeks out of the truck make me a little less edgy and more objective regarding the subject--again, that reprieve I mentioned.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I'll see how far that takes me next time I get a ticket for running a stop sign or something and the only evidence against me is someone else saying "I observed the defendant run the stop sign." I wonder which of us will be believed...


Insert purple as needed.

Civil court is a bit different, regardless of if the police are involved. The bar is simply lower for a conviction. Civil court basically requires the judge believes 51% that you did it, whatever 'it' is. I've rarely seen anyone in traffic court actually deny the charge. Mostly they try to offer a justification for why they broke the traffic law, disagree on some largely irrelevant detail (I was going 66 in the 45mph, not 67), or just wanted to see if the cop would show up. However when testimony does conflict, the cop is generally expected to not have any motivation to lie, while the motorist does. That's enough to bump you over 51%. Criminal court has a much higher bar, of course.

That's going to be the case in any civil trial. Getting sued in a civil suit sucks. Ask anyone who's been a landlord for awhile how much weight their word alone goes vs a tenant's when it comes to 51% or not.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Why are you always so defensive?

I'm not defensive, I asked you a legitimate question. Have you spent much time inside a courtroom?

Guilty conscience?

You wish.


I wish I knew what the two of you did for a living so that I could repeatedly trash it.

 

[hornadylnl]

I wish I knew what the two of you did for a living so that I could repeatedly trash it.

I work in maintenance at a factory. Production workers and management regularly trash my coworkers but they don't trash me because I rise above the rest with my abilities. I don't take offense to the comments they make about my coworkers.

My mom was a teacher and she regularly trashed several of her fellow teachers. She became the school union rep and would defend those same bad teachers to the hilt in front of the administration while still trashing them to everyone else. She had no interest in defending them. By defending them, she was looking out for herself. If that bad teacher can keep their job, she's safe.

 

[hoosierdoc]

If I was forced the testify from memory about events that would later be watched on Video for the whole room to see, I would be seen as "lying" numerous times. Video doesn't mix up details or combine incidents into one by accident.

premeditated lying is a problem obviously and it needs to be solved. The trick is the populace fighting against continuous monitoring by the government yet when they come up against the government they demand video evidence.

 

[Expat]

If I was forced the testify from memory about events that would later be watched on Video for the whole room to see, I would be seen as "lying" numerous times. Video doesn't mix up details or combine incidents into one by accident.

premeditated lying is a problem obviously and it needs to be solved. The trick is the populace fighting against continuous monitoring by the government yet when they come up against the government they demand video evidence.

How about 2 minutes later? You think you would forget by then?

[video=youtube;ldLDrBOjzEg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldLDrBOjzEg[/video]

 

[phylodog]

Interesting video. There was no doubt a green light but the cars in the other two lanes were stopped or stopping. You could also hear a siren immediately after the crash. Was the USBP van running with its lights and siren activated? Maybe that's the "light" the officer was talking about?

 

[hoosierdoc]

How about 2 minutes later? You think you would forget by then?

Not sure what this video is supposed to get across. People are mistaken in life every day and they believe they are correct. I saw a very similar thing and the guy got of the car, ran at the other car screaming about him running a light. Then he later realized he made the mistake. This video shows an initial error and nothing more.

 

[VUPDblue]

a mistake of fact and a lie are two very different things