Secret List Makes Prosecution of Criminals More Difficult

WTOP News-Talk Radio / Wash DC ^ | 24 March 2006 | Neal Augenstein

[mkjessup]

WASHINGTON - A police officer's testimony can make or break a criminal case when it goes to trial. WTOP Radio has learned of a secret list that makes it even more difficult to put criminals behind bars.

In D.C. it's called the Lewis List, but sources tell WTOP similar lists exist in almost every jurisdiction.

It's a computerized list, kept by prosecutors, of police officers under investigation -- officers prosecutors knew will have their credibility challenged if they testify.

[mkjessup]

...what this means is that prosecutors and police are carefully selecting which officers hear confessions, provide testimony, etc., which means that officers who are dirty don't have to worry about their misdeeds coming back to haunt them because they most likely will not have to take the witness stand, which will be reserved for only "Mr. Clean Officer."

[ncountylee]

Notice that no real effort is made to go after the "bad" apples. Can't have public employees fired or worse.

[Donald Meaker]

Some of the "do not testify" list officers are accused, or stutter, or do not show well, with no evidence behind an accusation. Some worked undercover, and perhaps still work undercover, at great personal risk. Others are dirty.

They are not all the same.

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

[nickcarraway]

You make it sound like this is a bad thing? Should prosecutors deliberately have such officers testify?

By the way, you make it sound like the officers and the list are automatically guilty of something bad. Do you think any good police officers might be in a position where some defense attorney can question the credibility.

[Supernatural]

Bad officers? Like the ones who lie under oath, lie on an arrest warrant, lie and lie some more? Lie to protect their brother officers?

That seems to be most of them, or all of them.

[mkjessup]

You make it sound like this is a bad thing? Should prosecutors deliberately have such officers testify? By the way, you make it sound like the officers and the list are automatically guilty of something bad. Do you think any good police officers might be in a position where some defense attorney can question the credibility.

1.) If prosecutors have the truth on their side, that should be enough, regardless of who the officer is testifying. If an officer isn't credible to give testimony, they're not credible strapping on a gun and being expected to enforce the laws in a just and fair manner.

2.) A good defense attorney will always seek to question the credibility of any witness, be they law enforcement or not.

3.) If it isn't a bad thing, why would prosecutors be insisting on keeping their secret "list", secret?

[truthpls]

Thank you. People seem to love hating police--that is until they need one. You have taken tnis discussion out of the realm of 'blind hate' (an attitude, I believe, was fostered in the 60's by a bunch of spoiled brats who thought no one should challenge them--just remember the "fuzz", and the "pigs"), into the realm of reality; that is, there are many reasons for certain actions, so don't be so quick to judge.

[Gondring]

ping

[de Buillion]

"Bad officers? Like the ones who lie under oath, lie on an arrest warrant, lie and lie some more? Lie to protect their brother officers? That seems to be most of them, or all of them. "

When I read this response of yours, all of my warning bells went off. Then when I checked all of your posts, it confirmed my intuition- you are one sick puppy.

[de Buillion]

G'nite, honey!

[LibertarianInExile]

I concur with mkjessup. Why are the cops who are on the list still able to patrol and effect arrests, if they are so untrustworthy they can't be put on the stand? Too large a percentage of police work is discretionary.

The worst part about police lying on the stand is they simply don't realize the damage they do to the judicial system. First, the criminals see cops lie and are emboldened. Second, the attorneys and judges see cops lie and don't stop them (in violation of their oaths as officers of the court). Third, juries see these lies, often see right through them, and convict anyway. That is making a mockery of the law.

That's not to say that all police are bad apples. Most I've seen on the stand have been straightforward. But the ones that are dirty often are such lousy liars that they spoil more than cops' reputations--they tarnish the entire legal system.

[mkjessup]

Well said my FRiend. As Bartyles & James used to say "Thank you, for your support". ;)

[Lancer_N3502A]

I'd love to see the list for New Orleans.

[mkjessup]

Not enough bandwidth. LOL