About half of us will have the murder of our loved one adjudicated in state court. (The other half will either have justice suspended in a cold case, watch helplessly as the case is dismissed, or find it tried in federal court when the crime is federal.) And this legal process takes time – often building over the years. So, a lot has transpired in our lives by the time it winds its way to an actual docket.
Three things are for certain. One, we will be tired beyond description. Two, the court case will temporarily slam us back to the mat emotionally as if the homicide just happened. And three, the gush of support and media attention that faded over the preceding months or years will revive (like it or not).
Witness List
We may or may not be called to the witness stand. But, if we are our nerves will be raw. When the prosecuting attorney prepares us for direct and cross-examination, we’re likely told something like this:
All people accused of crimes in the U.S. have rights. Even heinous crimes with unsavory defendants. One right afforded all defendants is the right to confront their accusers. Their attorneys are entitled to cross-examine you in open court. This has to do with their right to a fair and open trial.
This has far-reaching implications.
Witness Protection in Court
What if your safety is in jeopardy from being called to testify? Some of us have been stalked, threatened, had our young children forced to deliver a warning, and other adverse events that are the stuff of nightmares. This is especially true if the defendant belongs to a gang and has issued a credible threat to our lives.
A primary duty of any judge is to keep the courtroom running smoothly. They must keep the schedule, make quick, accurate rulings, manage outbursts, be mindful of the safety and secrecy of the jury, and enforce all rights of both parties. No judge wants a case overturned on appeal.
The enforcement of rights can raise anxiety. Case in point. Moments before I took the witness stand in the homicide case of my husband’s two accused killers in the Frank Murphy Hall of Justice in Detroit, an announcement was made. For reasons I never learned, Judge Sapala ordered an unexpected second weapons search of everyone. I held my breath.
If law enforcement identifies credible threats to the safety of witnesses (or anyone else in the courtroom for that matter) they must inform the prosecutor. Once informed, the prosecutor must protect the witness’s evidence and their safety. (There are separate protections for minors, the disabled, and the very elderly.)
There are several options prosecutors have at their disposal. Each must be weighed against the defendant’s rights mentioned above.
>>One is to restrict public access to the courtroom. Parts of the trial can be held in private. This is uncommon but not unheard of. This procedure is used more often with child witnesses or testimony against organized crime, an extremely wealthy defendant, or a high-placed public official.
>>A judge in Arizona used an unusual safety option by requiring each observer entering the courtroom to show identification. There had been credible threats of gang retaliation in court. Each ID was scanned. Court security staff made it obvious every name was being taken down and all were being screened for outstanding warrants. (The crowd thinned.)
>>A third option is to withhold the witness’s name or other information such as their address. Prosecutors may also prohibit the publication of witnesses’ names. This is limited to situations where the anonymity of the witness does not interfere with the defendant receiving a fair trial. However, this protection is useless when the defendant and witness are well acquainted.
>>A fourth option is for the witness to provide testimony behind an opaque screen with or without a video link (“teleconference”) transmitted in real time. The location of the witness could be local or distant. In rare instances, the voice or appearance of the person testifying can be electronically altered. But this cannot interfere with a fair trial. The defense attorney will likely raise objections because this option limits their ability to assess the witness’s credibility.
>>A fifth option is for the witness to hire their own attorney, specifically a “crime victim rights attorney” like Rachel Robinson of Colorado https://www.therayofjustice.com/ Crime victim rights attorneys advocate for the rights and safety of crime victims and crime co-victims.
WITSEC
The most stringent or extreme tactic is for the witness to enter witness protection (or “WITSEC” as it is known). In doing so they sign up for a lifetime of anonymity. (Interesting fact: nine out of ten people in federal witness protection have a history of criminal activity.)
WITSEC is a federal program focused on big cases against criminal enterprises with an accompanying credible threat to a witness’s life. However, most eyewitnesses observe gang killings or other street-level crimes. In that instance, it’s unlikely the federal government will intervene. Instead, several regions offer programs for relocation during and in the months immediately following trials.
More than 18,000 people have enrolled in federal witness protection since the program started in 1971. It was born of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970. Usually, the groundwork is set before the person testifies and immediately relocated once they are dismissed from further testimony.
WITSEC is not granted to everyone who seeks it. A screening process is carried out by the U.S. Marshals who oversee the program. (Additional information can be found through the prosecutor’s office, department of corrections, or sheriff’s office.)
The U.S. Marshals screen candidates for the program mentally and physically, conduct skill testing for job suitability, provide new identities, amend school records for minor children, absolve all debts, and expunge financial records. Participants are issued new documents such as social security cards, birth certificates, and driver’s licenses and given fake credit histories. Former medical records are quickly transferred with the new identity. The witness’s living expenses will be paid for a set time (such as six months). Each witness is assigned one U.S. Marshal.
On occasion, the U.S. Marshals oversee the writing of letters through a secure system (and all letters are destroyed after being read).
Many restrictions. The person in federal WITSEC can never travel or live internationally because U.S. Marshals have no independent authority in foreign locations. The person will likely never return to their old occupation. They cannot have a presence on the internet, particularly involving photos. If they wish to move or change jobs, they must get prior approval. If they marry, they cannot tell their new spouse their true identity. They cannot run for public office, enter a lottery or draw attention to themselves in other ways.
Boredom is a common complaint.
If the candidate is granted witness protection, they are moved to temporary quarters while they get their bearings (such as a hotel or a Safesite and Orientation Center which can house up to six, segregated families at a time). This temporary shelter may or may not be inside their home state. The temporary and final destinations are chosen by the U.S. Marshals. They try to keep the person in the same region of the country to maximize ease of adaptation. For example, they would balk at relocating someone accustomed to living in a snowy climate with cougars to one of humidity and alligators. If someone has a strong dialect they would prefer locating them where their accent and jargon blend in. While the U.S. Marshals select the general location, witnesses usually choose the exact residence from photographs. The placement will be in an area where the witness would be less noticed, such as a rural community without many CCTV cameras. However, the location must be within a reasonable driving distance of a local U.S. Marshal’s office. They try to keep the same initials as their old name and sometimes allow them to keep their first name. A witness with shared custody will be expected to give up visitation with their child.
Witnesses must avoid using “smart devices” because they can gather and transmit sensitive information about the household which can be hacked. Examples are video doorbells, robot vacuum cleaners, baby monitors, wireless home security systems, Wi-Fi lightbulbs, and virtual assistants like Alexa. Extra caution is needed to reduce computer vulnerability (such as disabling the camera, keeping software up to date, using strong passwords, and remote connectivity).
CCTV images. Witnesses must learn to avoid security cameras. As of 2024, nearly 537,000 security cameras are monitoring a population of 48 million people. Today’s electronics make it possible for tech-savvy citizens to gain access to public and some private CCTV cameras for their own use.
Data from EarthCam demonstrates that surveillance is most common in stadiums, university campuses, airports, hospitals, border crossings, major intersections, bridges, federal buildings, police stations, toll roads, and around famous signs (such as “Hollywood” and “Welcome to Vegas”). The city with the most CCTV cameras is Atlanta. This doesn’t begin to address the private businesses that capture images (such as retail outlets, banks, ports, warehouses, gas stations, liquor stores, casinos, construction sites, apartment complexes, and even some veterinary clinics).
Stay Sober, Stay Legal. The U.S. Marshals expect people in the federal program to avoid drugs and alcohol and people who abuse them. Getting arrested is a serious matter. Sometimes the two overlap. Case in point. There was a man in WITSEC living in Iowa under the name “Chuck Andrews” who became intoxicated and threatening in a local tavern. Police were called. By the time “Chuck” was booked into the local jail 40 minutes later, his blood alcohol level (BAC) had climbed to 0.15%. He was stumbling, confused, and nauseous. During booking, he gave his real name and old address, thus negating his protective identity. In another famous example, Henry Hill (a.k.a. Martin Lewis) was arrested for trying to sell a pound of cocaine to two undercover DEA agents. He was expelled from the program.
Leaving WITSEC. There are only two ways to exit witness protection. One is voluntary. Not everyone who has left has survived. A case in point was Daniel LaPolla, age 54 who returned home supposedly for a family funeral. He decided to stop by his old house. Somehow word got out. His old address was rigged to explode as soon as he turned the key in the doorknob.
The second way to leave WITSEC is to be removed involuntarily for habitual violations of the rules. Before being kicked out of the program, the U.S. Marshals may first try relocating the witness to another area.
The U.S. Marshals have never lost a witness that remained in the program.
If you are testifying in the murder trial and the defendant or their supporters are threatening, stalking, or otherwise intimidating you or your family, or you fear retaliation, document it if at all possible and talk to the prosecuting attorney about your safety as soon as possible. If the threat is imminent dial 911.
