Assisting Victims and Other Witnesses for the State
The difficulties, inconveniences, and frustrations faced by people serving as witnesses for the prose- cution have been well-known for decades. As far back as 1931, the National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement commented that the administration of justice was suffering because of the economic burdens imposed on citizens who participated in trials. In 1938, the American Bar Association noted that witness fees were deplorably low, courthouse accommodations were inadequate, intimidation went unchecked, and witnesses’ time was often wasted. In 1967, the President’s Commis- sion on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice reached similar conclusions. In 1973, the Courts Task Force of the National Advisory Com- mission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals noted that the failure of victims and witnesses to appear at judicial proceedings when summoned was a major reason for cases being dismissed. Non- cooperation was attributed to the high personal costs of involvement incurred by citizens who ini- tially were willing to meet their civic obligations (see McDonald, 1976).
V IC T IMS ’ R IG H T S AN D TH E C R IM IN AL JUS T I C E S YS TE M 217
Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
In the past, victims serving as prosecution wit- nesses often were mistreated in a number of ways. They would be subpoenaed to appear at a court- room, grand jury room, or prosecutor’s office. They would wait for hours in dingy corridors or in other grim surroundings. Busy officials would ignore them as they stood around bewildered and anxious. Often, they wouldn’t be called to testify or make statements because of last-minute adjournments. Accomplishing nothing, they would miss work and lose wages, be absent from classes at school, or fail to meet their responsibilities at home. In most jurisdic- tions, they would receive insultingly low witness fees for their time and trouble. In certain metropolitan areas, they would receive no compensation at all because no official informed them of their eligibility and of the proper application procedures. Their experiences often could be characterized as dreary, time-consuming, depressing, exhausting, confusing, frustrating, and frightening (Ash, 1972).
In 1974, the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA) commissioned a survey to determine the extent to which victims and other witnesses for the prosecution encountered these types of problems. The survey documented that about 10 percent never were notified that an arrest had been made in their case. Nearly 30 percent never got their stolen property back, even though it had been used as evidence. About 60 percent of injured persons were not informed of their right to file a claim for financial reimbursement. Roughly 45 percent reported that no one had explained to them what their court appearance would entail. About 25 percent of witnesses, including victims, summoned to court ultimately were not asked to testify. Even though nearly 80 percent lost pay to appear, about 95 percent received no witness fees. As a final insult, around 40 percent were never notified of the out- come of the case (Lynch, 1976).
To address these problems, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration funded the first Victim/ Witness Assistance Projects (VWAPs) through the NDAA. Pilot programs were set up in prosecu- tors’ offices in California, Illinois, Utah, Colorado, Kentucky, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and New York during the mid-1970s (Schneider and Schneider,
1981; and Geis, 1983). Since then, most prosecutors’ offices have established VWAPS. A nationwide survey determined that victim advocates made up 6 percent of all the persons working for prosecutors’ offices. Large offices in big cities employed 13 advocates on average, although the median in all offices, large and small, was just one person (Perry, 2006).
Several assumptions underlie the growth and development of these programs. One is that providing serviceswill elicit greater cooperation fromvictimsand witnesses. Presumably, well-briefed, self-confident witnesses who have benefited from such programs will be more willing to put up with the hardships of testifying in court, leading to lower dismissal rates and higher conviction rates, the standards by which prose- cutors’ offices are judged. Also, offering services to a groupperceived tobe highlydeservingof governmen- tal assistance will be good for community relations. Public confidence and faith in the criminal justice sys- tem will thus be restored, resulting in higher levels of cooperation within jurisdictions that have these pro- grams (Rootsaert, 1987).
Most VWAPs are charged with the laudable but vaguely defined mission of helping victims, aiding wit- nesses, and furthering the goals of law enforcement. In the best programs, agency personnel intervene as soon as possible after an offense is committed, providing immediate relief to the injured parties through services that include hotlines; crisis counseling; and emergency shelter, food, transportation, and immediate lock repairs. Some projects provide translators, guidance about replacing lost documents, and assistance in get- ting back stolen property recoveredby the police.Most make referrals to social service and mental health agen- cies for those needing long-term care and counseling. All programs furnish information about opportunities for reimbursement of losses and eligibility for compen- sation benefits (see Chapter 12). A few offer mediation services for victims who seek to reconcile their differ- ences with their offenders (see Chapter 13). To encourage witness cooperation, pamphlets are distrib- uted about the adjudication process (with titles like “What Happens in Court?” and “Your Rights as a Crime Victim”). Through a case-monitoring and noti- fication system, the staff keeps victims and other wit- nesses advised of indictments, postponements and
218 CH APT ER 7
Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
continuances, negotiated pleas, convictions, acquittals, and other developments. Linked to the notification system is a telephone alert or on-call system to prevent unnecessary trips to court if dates are changed on short notice, which also avoids wasting the time of police officers who serve as witnesses.
Some programs also have set up reception centers exclusively for prosecution witnesses in courthouses to provide a secure waiting room so that offenders and their families and friends won’t get any last-minute opportunities for intimidation. Transportation to and from court, escorts, and child care frequently are avail- able. Help in obtaining witness fees also is provided. The staff in some programs may go as far as to intercede with employers and landlords and other creditors who might not appreciate the stresses and financial difficul- ties witnesses face (Schneider and Schneider, 1981; Geis, 1983; Weigend, 1983; and Rootsaert, 1987).
Requirements about notification, protection (such as separate waiting areas in courthouses), and intercession (with employers and creditors) increase the justice system’s workloads and costs. A nationwide survey of prosecutors’ offices at the end of the century discovered that most district attorneys reported that new victims’ rights laws had imposed significant unfunded burdens on their limited budgets in the form of additional staff and more mailings and phone contacts (Davis, Henderson, and Rabbitt, 2002).
Some signs that VWAPs are reducing the mis- treatment of victims are evident. In 1974, only 35 percent of the offices of district attorneys routinely notified victims of felonies of the outcomes in their cases; 97 percent of these offices did so by 1992, according to the National Prosecutor Survey Pro- gram (Dawson, Smith, and DeFrances, 1993).
The establishment of VWAPs has raised some constitutional and ethical concerns. To deny ser- vices to a victim whose cooperation is not needed (or who desires to pursue a case that the prosecu- tor’s office wants to drop) would be unfair but not illegal, since the aid is granted as a privilege rather than as a right. To deny similar services (free park- ing, child care, last-minute phone calls canceling a scheduled appearance) to witnesses for the defense would violate notions of fairness within the adver- sary system. As long as the defendant is presumed
innocent unless proven guilty, evenhanded treat- ment of all witnesses should prevail. Rapport between victims and VWAP personnel that becomes too close can cause another problem: The testimony given in court can be considered coached or rehearsed if it departs from the original statements the complainants and witnesses made and covers up contradictions in order to make the most convincing case against the defendant.