Intimidation of witnesses

On Mar 23, 6:42 am, "CWLee" <cdubya...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
> I was thinking of the hypothetical situation in which a
> witness or other party believed it was in his own best
> interest (perhaps based on physical threats to him or his
> family, combined with a lack of confidence in the ability of
> anyone to provide adequate protection against those threats)
> not to be involved any more than necessary.

OK, witness intimidation is a big problem in some areas, particularly inner city neighborhoods where drug gangs routinely make and carry out threats against anyone who snitches.   In an atmosphere that charged with fear, the most likely thing is that the potential witnesses simply won't come forward and admit they know anything in the first place, even before they get placed on a witness stand.   How's the prosecutor going to know who to call to testify, if everybody in the crowd that saw a gang-war shootout occur denies they saw anything when questioned by the cops?   The homicide dicks can't "bring in for questioning" an entire neighborhood.   It takes a great deal of courage for even a single witness to come forward in such circumstances.

>  I suppose he
> could swear/affirm to tell the truth, and then answer "I
> don't know" or "I don't remember" to all questions.

If that's what he's going to do, the state wouldn't put him on the stand in the first place.  Besides, that would be perjury.

OTOH if what you're talking about is a fellow member of an alleged organized crime ring, being questioned before a Grand Jury frex, the most likely thing his mouthpiece will tell him to do is to take the Fifth.  ("On advice of counsel, I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me") and the state can't do a thing about it.

> Would
> the worst he might face in such a situation be a few
> days/weeks/months in jail for contempt?

I can think of absolutely no sensible reason any witness would ever be put in that position, except possibly a  journalist for protecting sources under a claim of journalistic privilege that the court has denied, or some other professional (doctor, priest, shrink) who refuses (on ethical grounds not recognized by the court) to reveal a professional confidence.  The intimidated bystander to a crime is simply not going to come forward in the first place, and the close-mouthed co-conspirator will take the Firth.

>  That might be the
> more attractive alternative to him, depending on how
> seriously he considered the threats made and how inadequate
> he believe his defenses against those threats might be.

I think you're concocting a pretty unlikely scenario, but it would be interesting to see how it might play out if it ever does really happen to someone.   But IMO several other posters have already replied to this angle of your question and have affirmed that a witness who simply refuses to testify, is likely to be jailed for contempt.

> Thanks to all for your previous and continuing insights.

De nada

--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685      (fax) 410-740-4300