U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

www.cops.usdoj.gov 

W i t n e s s 

I n t i m i d a t i o n 

by 

Kelly Dedel 

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides Series 

No. 42 
www.PopCenter.org 

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing 

Got a Problem? We’ve got answers! 

Log onto the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing web site 

at www.popcenter.org for a wealth of information to help 

you deal more effectively with crime and disorder in your 

community, including: 

• Web-enhanced versions of all currently available Guides 

• Interactive training exercises 

• Online access to research and police practices 

• Online problem analysis module. 

Designed for police and those who work with them to 

address community problems, www.popcenter.org is a great 

resource in problem-oriented policing. 

Supported by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services, U.S. Department of Justice. 
Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides Series 

Guide No. 42 

Witness Intimidation 

Kelly Dedel 

This project was supported by cooperative agreement 

#2004CKWXK002 by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein 

are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official 

position of the U.S. Department of Justice. References to specific 

companies, products, or services should not be considered an 

endorsement of the product by the author or the U.S. Department 

of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement 

discussion of the issues. 

www.cops.usdoj.gov 

ISBN: 1-932582-67-3 

July 2006 

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series i 

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series 

The Problem-Specific Guides summarize knowledge about 

how police can reduce the harm caused by specific crime 

and disorder problems. They are guides to prevention 

and to improving the overall response to incidents, not 

to investigating offenses or handling specific incidents. 

Neither do they cover all of the technical details about how 

to implement specific responses. The guides are written 

for police—of whatever rank or assignment—who must 

address the specific problem the guides cover. The guides 

will be most useful to officers who: 

• Understand basic problem-oriented policing principles 

and methods. The guides are not primers in problemoriented policing. They deal only briefly with the initial 

decision to focus on a particular problem, methods to 

analyze the problem, and means to assess the results of 

a problem-oriented policing project. They are designed 

to help police decide how best to analyze and address a 

problem they have already identified. (A companion series 

of Problem-Solving Tools guides has been produced to aid in 

various aspects of problem analysis and assessment.) 

• Can look at a problem in depth. Depending on the 

complexity of the problem, you should be prepared to 

spend perhaps weeks, or even months, analyzing and 

responding to it. Carefully studying a problem before 

responding helps you design the right strategy, one that is 

most likely to work in your community. You should not 

blindly adopt the responses others have used; you must 

decide whether they are appropriate to your local situation. 

What is true in one place may not be true elsewhere; what 

works in one place may not work everywhere. 
ii Witness Intimidation 

• Are willing to consider new ways of doing police 

business. The guides describe responses that other police 

departments have used or that researchers have tested. 

While not all of these responses will be appropriate to 

your particular problem, they should help give a broader 

view of the kinds of things you could do. You may think 

you cannot implement some of these responses in your 

jurisdiction, but perhaps you can. In many places, when 

police have discovered a more effective response, they 

have succeeded in having laws and policies changed, 

improving the response to the problem. (A companion 

series of Response Guides has been produced to help you 

understand how commonly-used police responses work 

on a variety of problems.) 

• Understand the value and the limits of research 

knowledge. For some types of problems, a lot of useful 

research is available to the police; for other problems, 

little is available. Accordingly, some guides in this series 

summarize existing research whereas other guides 

illustrate the need for more research on that particular 

problem. Regardless, research has not provided definitive 

answers to all the questions you might have about the 

problem. The research may help get you started in 

designing your own responses, but it cannot tell you 

exactly what to do. This will depend greatly on the 

particular nature of your local problem. In the interest 

of keeping the guides readable, not every piece of 

relevant research has been cited, nor has every point been 

attributed to its sources. To have done so would have 

overwhelmed and distracted the reader. The references 

listed at the end of each guide are those drawn on most 

heavily; they are not a complete bibliography of research 

on the subject. 
About the Problem-Specific Guides Series iii 

• Are willing to work with others to find effective 

solutions to the problem. The police alone cannot 

implement many of the responses discussed in the guides. 

They must frequently implement them in partnership with 

other responsible private and public bodies including other 

government agencies, non-governmental organizations, 

private businesses, public utilities, community groups, 

and individual citizens. An effective problem-solver must 

know how to forge genuine partnerships with others 

and be prepared to invest considerable effort in making 

these partnerships work. Each guide identifies particular 

individuals or groups in the community with whom 

police might work to improve the overall response to that 

problem. Thorough analysis of problems often reveals 

that individuals and groups other than the police are in 

a stronger position to address problems and that police 

ought to shift some greater responsibility to them to do 

so. Response Guide No. 3, Shifting and Sharing Responsibility 

for Public Safety Problems, provides further discussion of this 

topic. 

The COPS Office defines community policing as “a policing 

philosophy that promotes and supports organizational 

strategies to address the causes and reduce the fear of crime 

and social disorder through problem-solving tactics and 

police-community partnerships.” These guides emphasize 

problem-solving and police-community partnerships in 

the context of addressing specific public safety problems. 

For the most part, the organizational strategies that can 

facilitate problem-solving and police-community partnerships vary 

considerably and discussion of them is beyond the scope of 

these guides. 

These guides have drawn on research findings and police 

practices in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, 

Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. 
iv Witness Intimidation 

Even though laws, customs and police practices vary from 

country to country, it is apparent that the police everywhere 

experience common problems. In a world that is becoming 

increasingly interconnected, it is important that police be 

aware of research and successful practices beyond the 

borders of their own countries. 

Each guide is informed by a thorough review of the 

research literature and reported police practice and is 

anonymously peer-reviewed by line police officers, police 

executives and researchers prior to publication. 

The COPS Office and the authors encourage you to provide 

feedback on this guide and to report on your own agency’s 

experiences dealing with a similar problem. Your agency 

may have effectively addressed a problem using responses 

not considered in these guides and your experiences and 

knowledge could benefit others. This information will be 

used to update the guides. If you wish to provide feedback 

and share your experiences it should be sent via e-mail to 

cops_pubs@usdoj.gov. 

For more information about problem-oriented policing, visit 

the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing online at www. 

popcenter.org. This website offers free online access to: 

• the Problem-Specific Guides series 

• the companion Response Guides and Problem-Solving Tools series 

• instructional information about problem-oriented policing 

and related topics 

• an interactive problem-oriented policing training exercise 

• an interactive Problem Analysis Module 

• a manual for crime analysts 

• online access to important police research and practices 

• information about problem-oriented policing conferences 

and award programs. 
Acknowledgments v 

Acknowledgments 

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are produced by the 

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, whose officers are 

Michael S. Scott (Director), Ronald V. Clarke (Associate 

Director) and Graeme R. Newman (Associate Director). 

While each guide has a primary author, other project 

team members, COPS Office staff and anonymous peer 

reviewers contributed to each guide by proposing text, 

recommending research and offering suggestions on 

matters of format and style. 

The project team that developed the guide series 

comprised Herman Goldstein (University of Wisconsin 

Law School), Ronald V. Clarke (Rutgers University), 

John E. Eck (University of Cincinnati), Michael S. Scott 

(University of Wisconsin Law School), Rana Sampson 

(Police Consultant), and Deborah Lamm Weisel (North 

Carolina State University.) 

Members of the San Diego; National City, California; and 

Savannah, Georgia police departments provided feedback 

on the guides’ format and style in the early stages of the 

project. 

Cynthia E. Pappas oversaw the project for the COPS 

Office. Research for the guide was conducted at the 

Criminal Justice Library at Rutgers University under the 

direction of Phyllis Schultze. Suzanne Fregly edited this 

guide. 

Contents vii 

Contents 

About the Problem-Specific Guide Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i 

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v 

The Problem of Witness Intimidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

General Description of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 

Factors Contributing to Witness Intimidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 

Intimidators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 

Victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 

Locations and Timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 

Motivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 

Understanding Your Local Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 

Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 

Asking the Right Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 

Incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 

Intimidators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 

Victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 

Locations/Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 

Motivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 

Current Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 

Measuring Your Effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 

Responses to the Problem of Witness Intimidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 

General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 

Specific Responses to Reduce Witness Intimidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 

Protecting Witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 

Deterring Intimidators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 

Responses With Limited Effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 
viii Witness Intimidation 

Appendix: Summary of Responses to Witness Intimidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 

About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 

Recommended Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 
The Problem of Witness Intimidation 1 

The Problem of Witness Intimidation 

What This Guide Does and Does Not Cover 

This guide begins by describing the problem of witness 

intimidation and reviewing the factors that increase its 

risks. It then identifies a series of questions that can help 

analyze local witness intimidation problems. Finally, it 

reviews responses to the problem of witness intimidation 

as identified through research and police practice. 

Witness intimidation is but one aspect of the larger set of 

problems related to protecting crime victims and witnesses 

from further harm. Related problems not directly 

addressed in this guide, each of which require separate 

analysis, include: 

• domestic violence 

• acquaintance rape 

• stalking 

• exploitation of trafficked women 

• gun violence among youthful offenders 

• gang-related crime 

• bullying in schools 

• drug trafficking 

• organized crime. 

Some of these related crime problems are covered in 

other guides in this series, all of which are listed at the 

end of this guide. 

Although the problem of witness intimidation has 

special significance for prosecutors, it also has important 

implications for police. This guide focuses on the issues 

and responses that are most relevant to police, although 

useful resources for prosecutors are highlighted where 

appropriate. 
2 Witness Intimidation 

§ In this guide, the term “witness” 

is used to refer both to victims and 

to bystanders who could provide 

information to police. The term 

“victim” is used to denote the victim 

of the initial crime. 

§§ Witnesses refuse to cooperate 

with police for reasons that are not 

related to intimidation. For example, 

a general lack of trust in the police 

may deter some witnesses from 

cooperating. In addition, research 

has shown that a desire for privacy, 

a desire to protect the offender from 

criminal prosecution, emotional 

attachments, economic dependence, 

or a desire to protect children may 

also deter victims of domestic 

violence from cooperating with 

police (Felson et al. 2002). 

Witness intimidation plays a role in many types of 

crime and is related to other problems that police 

encounter during the course of an investigation. 

Witness intimidation, however, is not the same as 

repeat victimization. Although in both cases the same 

offenders may be responsible for multiple events, their 

motives are different. In witness intimidation, the intent 

is to discourage the victim from reporting a crime to 

police or from cooperating with prosecutors, whereas 

in repeat victimization, the motive is often acquisitive. 

However, repeat victims may believe that their subsequent 

victimization was in retaliation for reporting the initial 

crime, even where intimidation was not the motive.

1 

General Description of the Problem 

Citizens who witness or are victimized by crime are 

sometimes reluctant to report incidents to police or to 

assist in the prosecution of offenders.

§ Such reluctance 

may be in response to a perceived or actual threat of 

retaliation by the offender or his or her associates, or may 

be the result of more generalized community norms that 

discourage residents from cooperating with police and 

prosecutors.

§§ In some communities, close ties between 

witnesses, offenders, and their families and friends may 

also deter witnesses from cooperating; these relationships 

can provide a vitally important context for understanding 

witness intimidation. Particularly in violent and gangrelated crime, the same individual may, at different times, 

be a victim, a witness, and an offender.

2 Historically, 

witness intimidation is most closely associated with 

organized crime and domestic violence, but has recently 

thwarted efforts to investigate and prosecute drug, gang, 

violent, and other types of crime. 
The Problem of Witness Intimidation 3 

Witness intimidation takes many forms, including: 

• implicit threats, looks, or gestures 

• explicit threats of violence 

• actual physical violence 

• property damage 

• other threats, such as challenges to child custody or 

immigration status. 

More specifically, offenders may: 

• confront witnesses verbally 

• send notes and letters 

• make nuisance phone calls 

• park or loiter outside the homes of witnesses 

• damage witnesses’ houses or property 

• threaten witnesses’ children, spouses, parents, or other 

family members 

• assault or even murder witnesses or their family members. 

Threats are much more common than actual physical 

violence and are in fact just as effective in deterring 

cooperation.

3 Although some witnesses experience a single 

incident of intimidation, intimidation may also involve an 

escalating series of threats and actions that become more 

violent over time.

4 Other witnesses do not experience 

intimidation directly, but rather believe that retaliation will 

occur if they cooperate with police. Either way, they are 

deterred from offering relevant information that might 

assist police and prosecutors. 

Particularly in communities dominated by gang and 

drug-related crime, residents have seen firsthand that 

offenders are capable of violence and brutality. Many 

also believe that offenders will return to the community 
4 Witness Intimidation 

§ Drive-by shootings and other 

acts of blatant violence promote 

fear among residents, as do actions 

specifically warning residents not to 

cooperate with police. In 2004, gang 

members from Baltimore, Maryland 

appeared in a DVD entitled Stop 

Snitching, in which they threaten 

harm to those who cooperate 

with police. Stop Snitching tee shirts 

have also appeared in retail outlets 

nationwide (Butterfield 2005). 

§§ In 2004, only 50 percent of 

violent crimes and 39 percent of 

property crimes were reported 

to police; however, only a very 

small portion of victims surveyed 

indicated that intimidation was 

the reason they did not report the 

crime. Most often, victims did not 

report crime because they believed 

that the incident was too trivial to 

involve police or that the matter was 

personal (Karmen 2004; Catalano 

2005). 

after relatively brief periods of incarceration or will be 

able to arrange for intimidation by others while they 

themselves are incarcerated. The experience of violence 

in the community lends credibility to threats and creates 

a general sense of fear that discourages cooperation with 

police. 

National Public Radio 

A fire set at this house in Baltimore killed a family of seven 

in 2002, drawing national attention to the problem of witness 

intimidation. 

Witness intimidation commonly takes two mutuallyreinforcing forms.

5 

• Case-specific intimidation involves threats or violence 

intended to discourage a particular person from 

providing information to police or from testifying in a 

specific case. 

• Community-wide intimidation involves acts that are intended 

to create a general sense of fear and an attitude of 

non-cooperation with police and prosecutors within a 

particular community.

§ 

The prevalence of witness intimidation is difficult to 

quantify for many reasons. First, crime is underreported 

based upon a number of factors that have nothing to do 

with witness intimidation.

§§ Second, where intimidation is 
The Problem of Witness Intimidation 5 

successful, victims and witnesses report neither the initial 

crime nor the intimidation.

6 Third, although victimization 

surveys and interviews with witnesses whose cases go to 

court are helpful, they capture only a subset of the larger 

population of witnesses. They do not provide information 

on the experiences of the many witnesses who drop out 

of the process before a suspect is charged or a case goes 

to court.

7 Finally, there has been no empirical research on 

the scope or specific characteristics of community-wide 

intimidation. 

That said, small-scale studies and surveys of police and 

prosecutors suggest that witness intimidation is pervasive 

and increasing. For example, a study of witnesses 

appearing in criminal courts in Bronx County, New York 

revealed that 36 percent of witnesses had been directly 

threatened; among those who had not been threatened 

directly, 57 percent feared reprisals.

8 In the United 

Kingdom, a survey of witnesses appearing in court 

revealed that a majority had been affected by intimidation 

either through direct experience (53 percent) or because 

they feared intimidation (17 percent). Anecdotes and 

surveys of police and prosecutors suggest that witness 

intimidation is even more widespread.

9 Prosecutors 

estimate that witness intimidation plays a role in 75 

to 100 percent of violent crime committed in gangdominated neighborhoods, although it may play less of a 

role in communities not dominated by gangs and drugs.

10 

The increasing prevalence of witness intimidation is a 

reflection of the same social and psychological factors 

that have changed the nature of crime and offenders over 

the past two decades, including:

11 

• a lack of respect for authority, particularly among juvenile 

offenders 

• the expectation that life will be brief or will be spent in 

prison 
6 Witness Intimidation 

• a sense of powerlessness that leads to gang formation 

• the availability of firearms and a willingness to use them 

• increased penalties that raise the stakes of prosecution. 

Most intimidation is neither violent nor life-threatening, 

but even a perception that reprisals are likely can be 

distressing and disruptive to witnesses.

12 Experiencing 

intimidation reduces the likelihood that citizens will 

engage with the criminal justice system, both in the 

instant offense and in the future.

13 Although the public 

tends to overestimate the actual risk of harm, its fear 

and the resulting reluctance to cooperate can have 

serious collateral consequences for the criminal justice 

system. Witness intimidation deprives investigators and 

prosecutors of critical evidence, often preventing suspects 

from being charged or causing cases to be abandoned 

or lost in court. In addition, witness intimidation lowers 

public confidence in the criminal justice system and 

creates the perception that the criminal justice system 

cannot protect the citizenry. As a result, police expend 

significant time and energy persuading witnesses to come 

forward; and when they do, police spend considerable 

energy reassuring and protecting them. 

Factors Contributing to Witness Intimidation 

Understanding the factors that contribute to the problem 

of witness intimidation will help to frame local analysis, to 

determine good effectiveness measures, to recognize key 

intervention points, and to select appropriate responses. 

Intimidators 

Intimidation is usually perpetrated by those involved 

in the original offense, although the original offender’s 

friends, family members, and criminal associates may 
The Problem of Witness Intimidation 7 

also threaten or harm witnesses.

14 In gang-related crimes, 

friends, family members, and associates may be more 

likely to threaten and intimidate witnesses.

15 In addition to 

gang and drug-related crimes, intimidation is particularly 

prevalent in cases involving domestic violence, bias crime, 

harassment, and sex offenses.

16 In contrast, cases involving 

property crime, such as burglary or car theft, are rarely 

affected by intimidation.

17 

Although intimidation is a key feature of gang and drugrelated violence, the offenders are not necessarily aligned 

with nationally affiliated gangs or large drug operations; 

members of loosely affiliated gangs and local dealers may 

also protect their interests through intimidation.

18 Surveys 

suggest that offenders with a sophisticated understanding 

of the criminal justice system may be less willing to 

engage directly in intimidation and will either refrain from 

attempting to intimidate witnesses or will permit others to 

intimidate witnesses on their behalf.

19 

Victims 

Victims of intimidation are not a homogeneous group. 

Although all citizens who agree to serve as witnesses need 

to be protected from reprisals, their vulnerability depends 

largely upon circumstance and may therefore change over 

time. Further, intimidation is not evenly distributed socially 

or geographically. People in certain locations—inner cities, 

densely populated areas, and communities where social 

cooperation is poor—are more likely to suffer intimidation 

than are others.

20 The characteristics of those likely to be 

victims of intimidation cluster around several criteria, many 

of which appear to be interdependent. 

• Gender and age. Children and females may be at greater 

risk of intimidation than adults and males.

21 
8 Witness Intimidation 

• Relationship. Those with close ties to an offender 

are at a greater risk of intimidation.

22 These ties can 

be romantic or familial; or the victim and offender 

may simply know each other from having mutual 

acquaintances or from living in the same neighborhood. 

Victims of domestic violence appear to be at an elevated 

risk for retaliation, especially where the victim lives with 

the offender, is economically dependent on the offender, 

or is compelled to remain in contact with the offender 

because of shared parenting responsibilities.

23 

• Proximity. Victims and witnesses who live in geographic 

proximity to offenders are at a greater risk of intimidation 

than those who live in different neighborhoods or 

communities.

24 Surveys suggest that it is rare for an 

offender or his associates to leave their home community 

to intimidate a witness who lives in another area.

25 

• Immigration status. Recent or illegal immigrants 

may be at an increased risk of intimidation.

26 In some 

Asian cultures, for example, intimidation is a key feature 

of gang-related extortion and gang members have a 

reputation for ruthlessness. Coupled with a fear of 

deportation and a lack of understanding of the role 

of police, such social experiences can lead to a greater 

susceptibility to threats and warnings not to cooperate 

with law enforcement. 

• Criminal involvement. Victims and witnesses with 

criminal records, active warrants, or active parole and 

probation conditions may be particularly hesitant to 

provide information to police. In addition, witnesses 

who were also accomplices to the original offense may 

be choice targets for intimidation. And in inter-gang 

violence, where the roles of offender, victim, and witness 

are often interchangeable and revolving,

27 victims and 

witnesses may not cooperate with police because they 

intend to retaliate against the original offender or because 

of peer group norms that discourage cooperation. 
The Problem of Witness Intimidation 9 

Locations and Timing 

Many witnesses are intimidated long before they are 

asked to appear in court, most often by a community 

norm that discourages residents from cooperating with 

police. Most explicit acts of intimidation take place where 

police exert little control: at the witness’s home, while 

the witness is at school or at work, or while the witness 

is running errands or socializing in the neighborhood.

28 

However, witnesses also report being intimidated at the 

scene of the crime, while at the police station making a 

statement or identifying a suspect, and sometimes while in 

the courthouse waiting to testify; some even report being 

intimidated while on the witness stand. The time between 

a suspect’s arrest and trial is the most dangerous; repeated 

and lengthy trial delays expand the opportunities available 

to a motivated intimidator.

29 

Motivations 

Offenders attempt to intimidate victims and witnesses 

for a number of reasons. Gang members use intimidation 

to subdue challenges to their authority or to reclaim lost 

gang status.

30 Gang members and other offenders use 

intimidation to avoid detection by police and to avoid 

conviction once they are arrested. Compared to the 

penalties for violent crime, penalties for intimidation are 

relatively light. As a result, offenders may feel they have 

little to lose and much to gain by avoiding conviction 

through intimidation.

31 Finally, the use and increasing 

sophistication of DNA and other forensic testing mean 

that deterring witness cooperation may be one of the only 

ways left available to weaken the prosecution’s case.

32 

Understanding Your Local Problem 11 

UnderstandingYour Local Problem 

The above information provides only a generalized 

description of the problem of witness intimidation. To 

combat witness intimidation effectively, you must combine 

the basic facts with a more specific understanding of 

your local problem. Only by carefully analyzing your local 

problem will you be able to design an effective remedial 

strategy. 

Stakeholders 

The following groups have an interest in the witness 

intimidation problem and ought to be considered for the 

contribution they might make to gathering information 

about the problem and responding to it: 

• victim-witness units 

• crime victim advocacy groups 

• prosecutors 

• defense attorneys 

• courts 

• witnesses’ families and friends 

• witnesses’ employers 

• public housing authorities or apartment complex 

managers. 

Asking the Right Questions 

Intimidation can occur at any time, from the point 

when a criminal incident first occurs to the moment the 

witness provides evidence in court; hence, it is essential 

to collaborate with prosecutors, victim advocates, and 

other stakeholders in analyzing and solving the problem. 

Because many witnesses drop out of the process before 

their cases go to court, it is essential to survey witnesses 
12 Witness Intimidation 

§ The Philadelphia District 

Attorney’s Office, Victim Services 

Division, utilizes a short interview 

guide to collect relevant facts about 

intimidation. It includes questions 

about the intimidator, type of 

intimidating conduct, and the time 

and place that the intimidation 

occurred. A copy of the interview 

guide is available in Finn and Healey 

(1996). 

and victims at multiple points in the process so that 

their responses address all the reasons and issues that 

deter them from cooperating fully. Finally, police cannot 

respond effectively to a problem if they do not recognize 

its occurrence. Police awareness can be increased through 

training, shift briefings, and police newsletters.

33 Guidance 

should be offered for spotting signs of intimidation; even 

something as simple as requiring officers taking statements 

or interviewing witnesses to ask about intimidation directly 

can be an effective analytical tool.

34, § Unfortunately, 

training curricula regarding the warning signs and typical 

behaviors of those who have been intimidated are not well 

developed. 

The following are some critical questions that you should 

ask in analyzing your local witness intimidation problem. 

Your answers to these and other questions will help you 

choose the most appropriate set of responses later on. 

Incidents 

• What types of behaviors do victims and witnesses perceive 

as intimidating or threatening? 

• What do offenders say to witnesses that creates a fear of 

retribution? 

• How often are acts of intimidation violent? How often do 

they involve property damage? 

• Are the family members of witnesses threatened or 

intimidated? 

• What do witnesses believe will happen if they cooperate 

with police or prosecutors? 

• Is there a general sense among community members 

that they should not cooperate with police? If so, what 

contributes to this attitude? 
Understanding Your Local Problem 13 

• In what proportion of reported crime does witness 

intimidation occur? What do these incidents have in 

common? Type of offense? Location? Offender profile? 

• In what proportion of crimes is intimidation unreported? 

What accounts for the failure to report incidents of 

intimidation? 

Intimidators 

• Which individuals act or speak in ways that witnesses 

perceive as threatening? Offenders? Their associates? 

Friends? Family members? 

• After what types of crime does intimidation occur? 

• What roles do gangs and drugs play in intimidation? 

• Do the friends or family members of witnesses act or 

speak in ways that lead witnesses to not cooperate? 

• Do offenders focus their intimidation efforts within 

their own communities or do they travel outside their 

communities to deter witnesses from cooperating? 

Victims 

• What are the characteristics of those who are deterred 

from cooperating with police and prosecutors? Gender? 

Age? Race? Criminal history? Previous victimization? 

• Why do some witnesses continue to cooperate with police 

and prosecutors, despite having been threatened? 

• What do witnesses say it would take for them to testify 

despite any intimidation? 

• Where do the victims of intimidation live and work in 

relation to the intimidators? 

• What types of relationships do witnesses have with those 

who intimidate them? 

• What roles do culture and immigration status play in 

intimidation? 
14 Witness Intimidation 

• Were those who are intimidated involved in the 

commission of the original offense? Do they have a 

history of criminal activity with the intimidators? 

• Why are those on parole or probation reluctant to 

cooperate with police and prosecutors? Are there 

specific violations that they are trying to conceal by not 

cooperating? 

Locations/Times 

• Where do victims and witnesses feel most vulnerable to 

intimidation? Home? Work? School? Out and about in the 

community? At the precinct? In court? 

• When do incidents of intimidation occur? At the scene? 

When witnesses provide statements at the precinct? When 

witnesses are asked to identify suspects? During the trial? 

After the trial is over? 

Motivations 

• What reasons do intimidators give for their behavior? 

• What do offenders indicate would deter them from trying 

to intimidate witnesses? 

Current Responses 

• What has been done by police and prosecutors in the past 

to minimize case-specific intimidation? 

• What has been done in the past by police and prosecutors 

to address community-wide intimidation? 

• Have police or prosecutors inadvertently validated 

community perceptions or fears related to intimidation? 

If so, how? By losing a case where a witness testified? By 

eroding public trust during a police incident? By assisting 

in immigration enforcement in an ethnic neighborhood? 
Understanding Your Local Problem 15 

• What are the penalties for witness tampering or 

intimidation? Are intimidators aware of them? Are they 

sufficiently harsh? 

• Which current responses focus on the victim or witness? 

Which focus on the offender and his or her family and 

associates? 

• What are the strengths of current responses to the 

problem of intimidation? 

• Are current responses sufficient to resolve the problem? 

If not, why not? 

• What other agencies or organizations can play a role in 

a comprehensive response to the problem of witness 

intimidation? Do police and prosecutors have existing 

relationships with these agencies or organizations? 

• What sources of funding are available to support the 

efforts of police and prosecutors in dealing with the 

problem of witness intimidation? 

Measuring Your Effectiveness 

Measurement will allow you to determine the degree to 

which your efforts have succeeded and may also suggest 

how your responses can be modified to produce the 

intended results. In order to determine how serious 

the problem is, you should measure the extent of your 

problem before you implement responses; in that way, 

measuring the problem after responses have been 

implemented will allow you to determine whether your 

solutions have been effective. All measures should be 

implemented in both the target area and surrounding 

areas. (For more detailed guidance on measuring 

effectiveness, see the companion guide to this series, 

Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police 

Problem-Solvers.) 
16 Witness Intimidation 

§ The Savannah Police Department 

established a witness protection 

program with the goal of reducing 

the number of intimidation 

incidents. The number of incidents 

initially increased because police 

began to ask all victims and 

witnesses if they felt afraid or had 

experienced intimidation, rather than 

relying on victims and witnesses to 

initiate the discussion (Goldkamp, 

Gottfredson and Moore 1999). 

The following are potentially useful measures of the 

effectiveness of responses to witness intimidation: 

• reduced number of witnesses who experience threats or 

intimidation 

• increased number of witnesses who provide information 

to police 

• increased number of witnesses who provide statements to 

police 

• increased number of witnesses who agree to testify in 

court 

• increased proportion of convictions. 

The following may offer an indirect indication that the 

situation is improving: 

• increased proportion of crimes reported to police 

• increased number of witnesses who are aware of the 

protections that are available to them 

• increased number of witnesses who report intimidation§ 

• increased number of offenders who are charged with 

intimidation 

• increased public confidence in the criminal justice system 

and its ability to protect the citizenry. 
Responses to the Problem of Witness Intimidation 17 

Responses to the Problem of Witness 

Intimidation 

Analyzing your local problem will give you a better 

understanding of the factors that contribute to it. Once 

you have analyzed your local problem and established a 

baseline for measuring effectiveness, you can consider 

possible responses to the problem. 

The following response strategies will provide a 

foundation for addressing your particular intimidation 

problem. These strategies are drawn from a variety of 

studies and police reports. Several strategies may apply to 

your local problem. It is critical that you tailor responses 

to local circumstances and that you can justify each 

response based upon reliable analysis. In most cases, an 

effective strategy will involve several different responses. 

Because law enforcement alone is seldom effective in 

reducing or solving the problem, do not limit yourself 

to considering only what police can do; rather, carefully 

consider whether others in your community share 

responsibility for the problem and whether they can help 

respond to it. 

General Considerations for an Effective 

Response Strategy 

1. Forming multi-agency partnerships. The appropriate 

party to address the threat of witness intimidation may 

change as a case moves through the criminal justice 

system. For example, whereas police may be responsible 

for protecting or supporting witnesses at the outset of 

a case, the responsibility might shift to the prosecutor 

when the case goes to trial. And depending upon the 

type of protection required, other agencies may need to 

become involved as well. For example, public housing, 

public benefits, and social services agencies may all 
18 Witness Intimidation 

§ Finn and Healey (1996) offer 

comprehensive guidance for 

crafting cooperative agreements 

and designating functional roles for 

agency staff. 

have a role to play where circumstances dictate that 

a witness should be relocated. Hence, planning and 

implementing a comprehensive program to prevent 

and address witness intimidation requires multiple 

actors: an organizing committee of administrators who 

are authorized to commit agency resources; a team to 

design program operations; a program administrator; 

case investigators; victim advocates; and police support.

§ 

Unfortunately, shared responsibilities can also result in 

blurred accountability.

35 For this reason, interagency 

agreements are sometimes needed to outline each 

agency’s responsibilities, the services to be provided, the 

financial ramifications and obligations, and the parameters 

for allowable expenses and services.

36 Not only do 

interagency agreements create accountability, but they 

also make service delivery more coordinated and efficient. 

Still, such agreements require significant levels of trust 

between agencies. 

2. Limiting liability. Some police agencies are hesitant 

to implement comprehensive witness security programs 

because they fear that recognizing witness intimidation 

will create liability in the event that the intimidation is 

successful and harm befalls the witness. Liability can be 

limited by in a number of ways, including: 

• taking reports of intimidation seriously and engaging in 

the defined process for protecting witnesses 

• promising only those security services that can 

reasonably be provided 

• documenting all offers of assistance and all efforts to 

protect witnesses, along with the acceptance or refusal 

of such assistance 

• making sure that witnesses understand the 

circumstances under which protections will be 

withdrawn and documenting all decisions to withdraw 

security.

37 
Responses to the Problem of Witness Intimidation 19 

3. Strengthening ties between police and the 

community. Ideally, community residents will be 

committed to reporting crime and giving evidence 

in court; and in return, police will be committed to 

providing support, information, and protection to 

potential witnesses.

38 Fostering cooperation on the 

part of reluctant witnesses is a natural extension of 

community policing and community prosecution, which 

focus on engaging residents in preventing and responding 

to crime.

39 For example, mobile precincts can increase 

police visibility after a high-profile gang-related crime in 

an area where intimidation is likely to occur. Storefront 

precincts can increase the level of contact with residents 

and make it easier to provide encouragement and support. 

Community prosecutors can have a visible presence at 

crime scenes and can network with witnesses to build 

cases. Sensitivity to fear of intimidation can create trust 

and a sense that police recognize why some residents may 

be afraid to cooperate.

§ 

Efforts to develop trust and to communicate 

understanding can also be enhanced by outreach efforts 

designed to educate residents about witness intimidation 

and to provide information about related services. 

Outreach efforts should involve multiple agencies 

including police, prosecutors, housing and other social 

service agencies, federal law enforcement agencies, the 

U.S. Attorney, and victim advocacy groups.

40 Because 

perceptions of the likelihood and severity of intimidation 

are often exaggerated, outreach is essential to minimize 

irrational fears and to provide reliable information.

41 

Outreach efforts are also one of the only ways to reach 

witnesses whose fear prevents them from making any 

contact with the police at all. The most effective message 

is one that draws a connection between serving as a 

witness and preventing drug dealers and gang members 

from terrorizing communities.

42 

§ One police department avoids 

handing out official business cards 

at the scene. Instead, their cards 

read “Don’t talk to me here. Call 

me.” and provide residents with a 

direct phone number to investigating 

officers (Finn and Healey 1996). 
20 Witness Intimidation 

Finally, outreach is particularly essential in Asian 

communities and in communities with recent or illegal 

immigrants.

43 These residents may not be familiar 

with the criminal justice process and may need both 

information and encouragement to participate in it. 

Matching the cultural and linguistic skills of police and 

other outreach personnel to the target community can 

also encourage cooperation. 

4. Assessing the risk of intimidation. The level of 

intimidation experienced by a witness should dictate 

the type and intensity of services provided by police, 

prosecutors, and other agencies. Standardized risk 

assessments will ensure that these decisions are made 

consistently, objectively, and fairly. In the United 

Kingdom, classification as a vulnerable or intimidated 

witness is based upon a number of factors: characteristics 

of the witness, such as age, gender, and physical and 

mental condition; the nature of the original offense; the 

relationship between the witness and the offender; the 

nature of the evidence the witness is able to provide; the 

characteristics of the defendant, such as criminal history, 

access to firearms, and connections to criminal networks; 

and the nature of any direct threats.

44 Assessments 

should be conducted periodically to determine whether 

the level of risk has increased or decreased and whether 

current protections are sufficient. Sharing the results of 

risk assessments will provide witnesses with a realistic 

understanding of potential dangers and allow them to 

make informed decisions about the types of protections 

they will commit to using.

45 

While risk assessments are useful for allocating 

resources, they may inadvertently invalidate the fears 

and anxieties of witnesses who do not meet the criteria 
Responses to the Problem of Witness Intimidation 21 

for more intensive forms of assistance.

46 Further, most 

intimidation experiences are too complex for standardized 

risk assessment instruments to be useful.

47 

5. Choosing the best strategy. Criminal prosecutions 

typically serve several purposes: although they are 

intended to do justice in a particular crime, they often also 

serve as a means of addressing an underlying problem, 

such as drug dealing or gang activity. If there is reason 

to believe that witness intimidation might stymie criminal 

prosecutions, police should consider whether prosecutions 

requiring civilian witnesses are the best approach to 

dealing with a specific crime problem. Other approaches, 

such as civil remedies involving nuisance abatement or 

injunctions, can minimize the need to find individuals 

who are willing to testify in criminal court. 

Specific Responses to Reduce Witness Intimidation 

Protecting Witnesses 

6. Minimizing the risk of identification witnesses 

face when reporting crime or offering statements. 

Particularly in neighborhoods where communitywide intimidation is a factor, residents may hesitate to 

cooperate with police at the scene of a crime because 

they fear being labeled as an informant or a “rat.” As a 

result, methods for reporting crime or offering witness 

statements that do not make cooperation obvious 

to observers are sometimes needed.

48 For example, 

police can refrain from interviewing witnesses at the 

scene, choosing instead to visit them at their homes in 

plainclothes after activity on the street has diminished. 

House-to-house calls that disguise which residents are 

cooperating can also be helpful, although these additional 
22 Witness Intimidation 

§ Crime prevention officers 

should be routinely involved in 

these activities. In addition, the 

Fresno District Attorney’s Witness 

Intervention Team partnered with 

ADT Security Services to protect 

witnesses who chose not to relocate 

after experiencing intimidation. ADT 

provided free panic alarm technology 

in the witnesses’ homes to afford a 

greater sense of security (Goldkamp, 

Gottfredson and Moore 1999). 

visits increase police workloads. Some witnesses may be 

more comfortable meeting at the precinct or in a neutral 

place, such as a church or a school. 

7. Protecting the anonymity of witnesses. Given the risk 

of threats and intimidation, many witnesses do not want 

offenders to learn their identities or addresses. Practices 

such as broadcasting witness names and addresses over 

the police radio, asking witnesses to identify suspects out 

in the open, and revealing a witness’s identity to a suspect 

can all jeopardize witness safety. Limiting the information 

that is available about witnesses and taking other 

protective measures can effectively combat these issues. 

Protecting the anonymity of witnesses once a case goes 

to trial can be more problematic. Recent court cases 

have debated the balance between witness safety and a 

defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to cross-examination. 

To date, court opinions have emphasized the rights 

granted to defendants by the Sixth Amendment of the 

Constitution.

49 However, numerous measures have been 

used effectively to limit opportunities for intimidation 

to occur in the courtroom. These include allowing the 

witness to give evidence via a closed circuit television link 

and using screens that allow the judge, jury, and attorneys 

to see the witness while at the same time shielding 

the witness from the defendant and members of the 

public.

50 In some cases, the witness’s name and address 

are not read aloud in court, making it more difficult for a 

defendant’s fellow gang-members or criminal associates to 

target the witness.

51 

8. Using alarms and other crime prevention devices. 

Intruder alarms, motion detectors, cameras, and outdoor 

lighting can be used to deter intimidators from targeting 

witnesses at home.

§ Target hardening devices, such as 
Responses to the Problem of Witness Intimidation 23 

deadbolt locks, window locks, window bars, grates, and 

pin locks on sliding doors can also make unauthorized 

entry more difficult. All of these measures can give 

intimidated witnesses a greater sense of security in their 

homes. 

When not at home, intimidated witnesses can be equipped 

with portable personal alarms.

§ These pendant alarms 

can be linked to cellular networks so that they work in 

any location.

52 Some models open a voice channel upon 

activation so that police can hear what is happening and 

can reassure the witness that assistance is on the way. 

Alarms are effective because they assure witnesses that 

intimidation efforts will receive a rapid response. And 

because they do not require a constant police presence, 

personal alarms are less costly than bodyguards, while still 

providing the same around the clock protection.

53 

9. Reducing the likelihood of contact between 

witnesses and offenders. Most often, acts of 

intimidation are committed at a witness’s home, 

workplace, or school, or during the normal course of the 

witness’s daily activities. Minimizing the opportunities 

and avenues by which witnesses come into contact with 

offenders can reduce the incidence of intimidation. For 

example, witnesses can alter their normal routines by 

varying the routes taken to work or school and making 

their schedules irregular and unpredictable. Because 

many witnesses receive nuisance calls or are contacted by 

telephone, obtaining an unlisted telephone number and 

using caller identification and call blocking can provide 

additional insulation from unwanted contact.

54 

10. Transporting witnesses to and from work and school. 

Many witnesses feel vulnerable when traveling to and 

from work or school, or while attending to their business 

§ The use of portable personal 

alarms has been shown to reduce 

victims’ levels of anxiety in domestic 

violence situations (Lloyd, Farrell 

and Pease 1999). 
24 Witness Intimidation 

§ See U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of the Attorney General 

(2000) for a complete discussion 

of victim and witness assistance 

programs. 

§§ The Suffolk County, 

Massachusetts victim assistance 

program targets victims and 

witnesses in gang-related cases. 

Intensive personal contact was 

required; notices sent through the 

mail and occasional phone calls 

were not sufficient to allay fears or 

to sustain engagement (Johnson, 

Webster and Connors 1995). 

in the community. Police escorts during these times can 

deter offenders from making contact. However, such 

protection schemes consume significant police resources 

and may not be feasible for broad application. In addition, 

the presence of an escort may draw unwanted attention 

to the witness. Such intensive protection should be 

reserved for only those witnesses who are at a high risk 

of serious injury. 

11. Supporting witnesses. Over the past two decades, 

federal legislation has established a list of victims’ rights 

and defined a group of services that federal agencies 

must provide to crime victims.

§ Most state and county 

prosecutors afford crime victims these same rights 

and services. Such programs can also be implemented 

by police departments. Departments that offer victim 

assistance services have found that witnesses are 

more willing to report crimes and to cooperate with 

prosecutors; in addition, such witnesses offer more 

effective testimony and also demonstrate improved 

recall.

55 

In general, such assistance programs encourage victims 

to cooperate in the criminal justice process and provide 

counseling and other services designed to address the 

emotional impact of victimization. Most offer emergency 

services, counseling, advocacy and support, claims 

assistance, and court-related services.

56 Of particular 

benefit to police in cases involving intimidation, victim 

advocates typically provide: 

• general information about the criminal justice system 

and what the witness can expect 

• specific information regarding the suspect’s arrest 

status, bail, pretrial release, and court dates 

• engagement with victims early in the case and ongoing 

contact throughout the case.

§§ 
Responses to the Problem of Witness Intimidation 25 

Some assistance programs provide 24-hour hotlines with 

staff trained to counsel victims and to refer emergency 

situations to police where appropriate.

57 Some police 

hesitate to work closely with victim advocates, fearing that 

they will interfere with police procedures, create more 

work or stress, or will ask inappropriate questions that 

might compromise the integrity of an investigation.

58 In 

the past two decades, however, research has shown that 

victim assistance programs produce a number of benefits 

to police, including reduced stress, faster return to patrol 

after responding to a crime scene, and additional and 

higher-quality evidence.

59 In addition, victim advocates 

commonly handle all referrals for assistance and 

services, freeing police from this responsibility. Finally, 

advocates can calm victims and witnesses and address 

their emotional needs so that they are better prepared to 

provide accurate information. 

However, overloading victim advocates is a key concern.

60 

Their services should be seen as a complement to, not a 

replacement for, support offered by police. In particular, 

police should offer reassurance, provide witnesses with 

cell phones or other direct contact numbers, and maintain 

ongoing contact to reassess the level of threat and to 

assuage any other concerns witnesses may have. 

12. Keeping witnesses and defendants separated at the 

courthouse. Other than at home, witnesses are most 

often intimidated in the courthouse, both while waiting 

to testify and while in the courtroom giving testimony. 

Not only must witnesses endure a face-to-face encounter 

with the defendant, but they may also be apprehensive 

about contact with the defendant’s family and friends. 

Key danger areas include courthouse entrances, hallways, 

waiting areas, refreshment areas, and restrooms. Separate 

waiting rooms and entrances for witnesses and defendants 
26 Witness Intimidation 

can be useful. Some jurisdictions use an on-call system, in 

which witnesses are provided with pagers that summon 

them to the courthouse when they are needed to testify. 

This practice eliminates the need for witnesses to remain 

in the courthouse throughout the day, thereby reducing 

opportunities for intimidation to occur.

61 

Many victim assistance programs provide escort services 

to and from court; in addition, advocates often remain 

with witnesses throughout the day and accompany them 

into public areas of the courthouse. This can be especially 

effective in gang-related cases, where fellow gang 

members may attend the trial in large numbers in order to 

show their solidarity with the defendant and to intimidate 

witnesses into withholding or changing their testimony. 

The use of video cameras at courtroom entrances can 

discourage such practices, as gang members on probation 

or parole may not want to risk being seen associating 

with other gang members, lest they violate the conditions 

of their supervision.

62 Studies in the United Kingdom 

have found that courthouse-based efforts have effectively 

reduced the negative effects of intimidation.

63 

13. Relocating witnesses. Because it is unusual for 

offenders to travel outside of their neighborhoods to 

intimidate witnesses, simply moving a witness to another 

location can effectively protect him or her from harm. 

Of course, the key to this strategy is to ensure that the 

new location remains confidential. Out of boredom, or 

because they are reluctant to sever ties with friends and 

family, the witnesses themselves may compromise the 

secrecy of their new locations. Further, many witnesses 

require support from numerous agencies, such as public 

housing and social services. The confidentiality of 

transactions made on their behalf should be assured in 

formal interagency agreements. 
Responses to the Problem of Witness Intimidation 27 

Police and prosecutors consider relocation to be the most 

reliable method of protecting witnesses.

64 However, it is 

costly, time consuming, and requires a significant level 

of cooperation, from both public agencies and witnesses 

themselves. Originally, the only type of relocation 

available was through the Federal Witness Security 

Program, which involved permanent relocation and 

complete identity changes for witnesses and their families. 

Since the inception of the federal program in 1970, less 

extravagant models have been established by state and 

local jurisdictions, requiring a less significant commitment 

of public resources and a less extreme commitment from 

witnesses. These three types are discussed below. 

a. Emergency relocation. When danger is imminent, 

witnesses can be quickly moved to a shelter, hotel, motel, 

or other facility.

§ Witnesses are registered using false 

names and payment is made through an intermediary, 

not by the police or prosecutor.

65 Witnesses can also be 

placed with family or friends in other communities or 

even out-of-state, usually for airfare or the price of a bus 

ticket. These placements usually only last for a few days 

or weeks, until the threat has passed or a more permanent 

solution is found. 

b. Temporary or short-term relocation. It may be 

necessary to provide for extended periods of relocation 

when witnesses remain at risk for longer periods of 

time. Such short-term programs may be appropriate in 

jurisdictions where gangs are loosely organized, small, 

or poorly established.

66 Witnesses can either be placed 

in rental units or with out-of-state friends or family 

until the trial is over. Housing witnesses with others can 

be cost-effective and also offers a source of emotional 

support that advocates and police cannot provide. These 

arrangements are most successful when police confirm 

§ A witness security program in 

Savannah, Georgia used housing at 

a nearby military base to provide a 

safe living environment for witnesses 

who had been threatened. Baltimore, 

Maryland established safe houses 

to provide emergency shelter to 

intimidated witnesses. However, 

when witnesses returned to their 

home communities, they often 

revealed the location of the safe 

house, compromising its security 

(Goldkamp, Gottfredson and Moore 

1999). 
28 Witness Intimidation 

§ The Illinois Gang Crime Witness 

Protection Program struggled to gain 

speedy approval for the outlay of 

funds. These delays contributed to the 

underutilization of the program, as 

local police and prosecutors could not 

take action without a commitment for 

reimbursement from the state. This 

situation improved once the process 

for distributing funds was streamlined 

(Bauer et al. 1997). 

§§ It is important to understand 

the difference between the types of 

publicly assisted housing. “Public 

housing” refers to publicly-owned 

residential properties for eligible 

families at assisted rents that reflect 

the ability to pay. “Section 8 housing” 

refers to certificates and vouchers for 

federal rent subsidies that can be used 

to pay for a privately-owned house 

or apartment. Section 8 certificates 

are particularly useful because they 

allow for placement in a number of 

neighborhoods (Finn and Healey 1996). 

§§§ Finn and Healey (1996) offer 

extensive guidance for working with 

public housing authorities, including 

HUD eligibility requirements, tips for 

overcoming waiting list barriers, using 

floating vouchers, and advocating with 

landlords. 

§§§§ In the late 1990s, ScotlandStrathclyde established a witness 

protection program modeled after the 

Federal Witness Security Program. 

Effective elements of the program 

included collaborating with housing, 

social services, and health agencies; 

establishing direct links between 

administrators and those responsible 

for day-to-day operations; and hiring 

officers capable of working with a wide 

cross section of people with a range of 

domestic, financial, and welfare issues. 

For more information see Fyfe and 

McKay (1999) and Fyfe and McKay 

(2000a). 

that the sponsoring family is willing to house the witness, 

when the witness stays with someone unknown to the 

offender, when police in the receiving jurisdiction are 

notified, and when the witness is monitored regularly to 

ensure that she remains willing to testify.

67 

Most short-term relocation programs cover the cost of 

relocating, such as rent, security deposit, and moving 

expenses, and also provide monthly subsidies for utilities, 

food, clothing, and other living expenses.

§ Due to the 

expense involved, financial support is always time-limited, 

although a witness is usually free to stay in the new 

location if she so desires. The U.S. Attorney has access 

to the federal Emergency Witness Assistance Program, in 

which assistance is limited to only one month.

68 

Short-term relocation strategies are greatly enhanced 

by partnerships with federal and local public housing 

authorities.

§§ When a witness already resides in a public 

housing development, a rapid shift of residence can be 

made with few complications.

§§§ It may also be beneficial 

to determine whether the witness is eligible for public 

housing or other forms of public assistance. The transfer 

of benefits to the new location can be cumbersome and 

time-consuming without proper interagency agreements. 

c. Permanent relocation. The Federal Witness Security 

Program provides secret and permanent relocation 

of witnesses and their families to places of safety. §§§§ 

Witnesses must change their identities, sever all contacts 

with friends and family, and agree to not return to their 

home communities. In exchange, the program provides 

safety and security, as well as start-up funding for housing 

and subsistence until the witness becomes self-supporting. 

State and local prosecutors can refer witnesses to the 

program and reimburse the federal government for the 
Responses to the Problem of Witness Intimidation 29 

cost. Although the program reports high conviction 

rates and a good safety record, some significant issues 

must be considered. First, the psychological impact of 

severing ties and taking on a new identity should not be 

ignored; participants report high levels of stress, anxiety, 

and depression.

69 Second, the program only accepts 

those who provide significant testimony in major cases. 

Third, because these witnesses often have extensive 

criminal records themselves, they may pose a danger to 

the community of relocation.

70 Finally, secret relocation 

creates obvious difficulties for child custody arrangements 

and debtors seeking repayment.

71 

Deterring Intimidators 

The responses discussed above address the symptoms 

of intimidation (i.e., protecting the intimidated) rather 

than the causes of intimidation (i.e., deterring the 

intimidators). By implementing responses that address a 

culture that tolerates intimidation, police and prosecutors 

can demonstrate their determination to hold intimidators 

accountable for their actions.

72 The following responses 

focus on actions that can be taken in criminal court 

proceedings. 

14. Admonishing intimidators. When witnesses or victims 

tell police they are afraid or have experienced direct 

intimidation, police can visit the offender and his or 

her family and friends to caution them regarding their 

behavior and to explain the laws concerning witness 

intimidation and obstruction of justice. In court, judges 

should be vigilant about threatening gestures or actions 

and should admonish defendants or spectators who 

display such behaviors. Some jurisdictions educate judges 

about the types of courtroom intimidation that are 

exhibited by gang members, such as courtroom packing 
30 Witness Intimidation 

or wearing black.

73 Although admonishments by police 

and judges are associated with a reduction in intimidation 

reported by witnesses, judicial warnings not to contact 

witnesses may have limited effectiveness in gang and 

drug-related cases.

74 

15. Requesting high bail and no contact orders. In cases 

where the risk of intimidation is significant, prosecutors 

can seek high bail to keep defendants in jail and away 

from witnesses. Where this strategy is used, bond hearings 

cannot be a mere formality; witness statements and risk 

assessments should be prepared in advance and presented 

in court. Prosecutors should seek release conditions that 

forbid contact with witnesses and victims and make sure 

that the consequences for violating such conditions are 

clearly articulated. In some jurisdictions, prosecutors 

file multiple charges and request a separate bond for 

each; prosecutors may also file federal charges where 

appropriate.

75 The effectiveness of this strategy is limited 

by several factors.

76 

• The time between the original offense and arrest leaves 

ample opportunity for intimidation to occur. 

• Even if the defendant is incarcerated, his or her friends 

and family can still intimidate witnesses. 

• Defendants may be able to contact witnesses by 

telephone, even while incarcerated. 

• Bond schedules are usually strict and intimidation 

charges usually only require a small amount to be 

posted. 

• Incarcerating intimidators might not be possible in 

jurisdictions where jail crowding is a concern or where 

witness intimidation does not constitute an exception 

to population caps. 
Responses to the Problem of Witness Intimidation 31 

16. Increasing penalties for intimidation. In many 

jurisdictions, witness intimidation is a misdemeanor that 

results in sentences concurrent with those for the original 

offense. Thus, offenders who are charged with a violent 

offense that carries a long sentence may feel they have 

little to lose by trying to deter witnesses from providing 

evidence. Making witness intimidation a felony-level 

offense, increasing maximum sentences, and requiring 

such sentences to be served consecutively might deter 

offenders from tampering with witnesses.

77 

17. Prosecuting intimidators. The frequency with which 

offenders are charged with intimidation varies widely 

from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

78 Prosecutors can 

demonstrate their intolerance of witness intimidation 

and their commitment to resident safety by vigorously 

prosecuting offenders who harass, threaten, injure, or 

otherwise intimidate or retaliate against witnesses. Witness 

intimidation may also be cause to revoke probation or 

parole. 

Responses With Limited Effectiveness 

18. Increasing patrols in a target area. If police are 

made aware of the addresses of witnesses who have 

experienced intimidation, they can increase the frequency 

of patrol in the surrounding neighborhood. Although 

the increased visibility may relieve anxiety, the chances of 

actually intervening in an incident are slim unless police 

are posted near the witnesses around the clock. Limited 

resources are better deployed using one of the more 

targeted measures discussed above. 

19. Compelling witnesses to testify. Most states have 

material witness laws that permit the arrest and detention 

of any person with knowledge of a crime who refuses 
32 Witness Intimidation 

to provide information in court.

79 Witnesses who refuse 

to testify are subject to contempt actions and may 

be prosecuted for obstruction of justice.

80 In theory, 

compelling witnesses to testify shifts the responsibility 

from the witness to the prosecutor and may therefore 

reduce the risk of intimidation and the level of anxiety 

experienced by the witness. However, others are still likely 

to believe that the witness has chosen to cooperate.

81 

Although efforts to compel a witness to testify may 

provide him or her with needed confidence, threatening a 

witness with a contempt citation can also backfire, causing 

an already reluctant witness to develop a sudden and 

mysterious loss of memory. Because of concerns for the 

rights of victims and the lack of proof that compelling 

witnesses to testify is effective, this should be the option 

of last resort. 
Appendix: Summary of Responses to Witness Intimidation 33 

Appendix: Summary of Responses to 

Witness Intimidation 

The table below summarizes the responses to witness 

intimidation, the mechanisms by which they are intended 

to work, the conditions under which they should work 

best, and some factors that should be considered before 

a particular response is implemented. It is critical that 

responses are tailored to local circumstances and that each 

response can be justified based upon reliable analysis. In 

most cases, an effective strategy will involve implementing 

several different responses, because law enforcement alone 

is seldom effective in reducing or solving the problem. 

Response 

No. 

Page 

No. 

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations 

General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy 

1. 17 Forming 

multi-agency 

partnerships 

Ensures that 

witnesses are 

protected 

throughout 

the process of 

reporting crime 

and testifying at 

trial 

... specific interagency 

agreements detail 

the roles and 

responsibilities of each 

agency 

Crafting formalized 

agreements takes time; 

agency staff must ensure 

the confidentiality 

of witnesses; shared 

responsibilities can result in 

blurred accountability for 

delivery of services 

2. 18 Limiting 

liability 

Document all 

measures taken 

on behalf of 

witnesses in 

case of legal 

challenges 

... reports of 

intimidation are 

taken seriously; 

absolute protection 

is not guaranteed; 

witnesses are involved 

in decisions about 

protective measures 

Despite the best efforts 

of police, witnesses may 

still be harmed, which 

can adversely affect future 

cooperation 
34 Witness Intimidation 

Response 

No. 

Page 

No. 

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations 

3. 19 Strengthening 

ties between 

police and the 

community 

Encourages 

cooperation in 

criminal cases; 

increases police 

visibility, which 

can instill a 

greater sense 

of security in 

community 

residents 

... a connection 

is made between 

cooperation and a 

reduction in gang and 

drug-related violence; 

outreach efforts are 

specially tailored 

for Asian and other 

immigrant communities 

Outreach efforts require 

time and patience; rate of 

reported intimidation is 

likely to increase and will 

require additional resources; 

could inspire increased 

efforts from intimidators 

4. 20 Assessing 

the risk of 

intimidation 

Ensures that 

decisions about 

protective 

measures are 

consistent, fair, 

and objective 

... assessments are 

conducted periodically 

to determine if 

protective measures are 

sufficient; results of 

assessments are shared 

with witnesses 

Could marginalize witnesses 

who do not meet the 

criteria for more intensive 

modes of protection; 

standardized assessments 

may not capture casespecific nuances 

5. 21 Choosing the 

best strategy 

Limits the 

situations in 

which witnesses 

need to appear in 

court 

... an array of options 

are available, including 

criminal prosecution 

and civil remedies 

Civil penalties may be too 

lenient, particularly when 

used in response to violent 

crime 

Protecting Witnesses 

6. 21 Minimizing 

the risk of 

identification 

witnesses 

face when 

reporting crime 

or offering 

statements 

Provides safe 

and confidential 

avenues for 

communication 

between 

residents and 

police 

... witnesses are 

provided with a choice 

of methods to report 

crime or to make 

statements 

Follow-up visits require 

additional police time; 

plainclothes officers may 

still be identifiable; some 

information may be lost 

if witnesses decide not to 

follow up with police 

7. 22 Protecting the 

identity of 

witnesses 

Prevents 

offenders from 

learning the 

names and 

addresses of 

witnesses 

... new procedures are 

developed that limit the 

types of information 

that are broadcast over 

police radios; balance is 

found between witness 

safety and the right of 

defendants to crossexamine witnesses 

Witnesses cannot be 

guaranteed full anonymity 
Appendix: Summary of Responses to Witness Intimidation 35 

Response 

No. 

Page 

No. 

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations 

8. 22 Using 

alarms and 

other crime 

prevention 

devices 

Makes 

unauthorized 

entry into 

witnesses’ 

homes more 

... witnesses are trained 

to use devices properly; 

witnesses use the 

devices continuously 

Security devices can be 

costly; improper use may 

increase the rate of false 

alarms 

difficult and 

gives witnesses a 

greater sense of 

security; ensures 

that instances of 

intimidation will 

receive a rapid 

response 

9. 23 Reducing the 

likelihood 

of contact 

between 

Minimizes 

opportunities for 

intimidation 

... routines are 

varied; witnesses are 

committed to using 

avoidance tactics 

May be inconvenient for 

witnesses, resulting in lower 

compliance 

witnesses and 

offenders 

10. 23 Transporting 

witnesses to 

and from work, 

school, etc. 

Deters 

intimidators from 

making contact 

with witnesses 

because of 

the risk of 

... escort services are 

reserved for those at 

high risk of injury 

Escort schemes consume 

significant police resources 

and may not be feasible for 

broad application; presence 

of an escort may draw 

unwanted attention to the 

observation or witness 

intervention by 

escort 

11. 24 Supporting 

witnesses 

Addresses the 

emotional impact 

of victimization 

to make 

cooperation less 

daunting and to 

better prepare 

witnesses to 

... victim advocates 

have access to a wide 

range of services 

to address the 

constellation of witness 

needs; advocates are 

properly trained so 

that their actions do 

Victim advocates cannot 

be solely responsible for 

supporting all witnesses, lest 

they become overburdened 

provide accurate 

information 

not compromise the 

integrity of the case 
36 Witness Intimidation 

Response 

No. 

Page 

No. 

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations 

12. 25 Keeping 

witnesses and 

defendants 

separated at the 

courthouse 

Reduces the 

opportunities 

for intimidation; 

deters criminal 

associates from 

attending trial 

and behaving in 

an intimidating 

fashion 

... witnesses are 

accompanied by an 

advocate or volunteer 

while they are on-call at 

the courthouse 

May be difficult to 

accomplish depending 

on the layout of the 

courthouse; one-to-one 

assistance can be difficult 

to implement if multiple 

witnesses require services 

on the same day 

13. 26 Relocating 

witnesses 

Removes 

witnesses from 

the danger area 

... costs are minimized 

by placing witnesses 

with friends or 

relatives; witnesses 

obey all rules regarding 

contact with their home 

communities; additional 

services are available 

to address witnesses’ 

emotional, financial, 

and domestic needs 

Witnesses may not be 

willing to obey program 

rules; location of 

new housing may be 

compromised; witnesses 

with criminal backgrounds 

may present a risk to 

public safety in their new 

communities; child custody 

and other legal issues must 

be managed; the emotional 

impact on witnesses can be 

severe 

Deterring Intimidators 

14. 29 Admonishing 

intimidators 

Deters 

intimidators by 

making them 

aware of the 

penalties for their 

actions 

... police confront 

intimidators and their 

families and associates; 

judges are informed 

of typical courtroombased intimidation 

tactics 

May have limited 

effectiveness in gang and 

drug-related cases 
Appendix: Summary of Responses to Witness Intimidation 37 

Response 

No. 

Page 

No. 

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations 

15. 30 Requesting 

high bail and 

no contact 

orders 

Reduces the 

opportunities 

for intimidators 

to confront 

witnesses in the 

community 

... victim impact 

statements are 

presented at bond 

hearing; release 

conditions and the 

consequences for their 

violation are clearly 

articulated 

Time between offense and 

arrest leaves ample time 

for intimidation to occur; 

friends and family may 

still intimidate witness; 

defendants may be able to 

contact witnesses by phone, 

even while incarcerated; bail 

for intimidation is typically 

low; jail crowding may 

prevent the incarceration of 

potential intimidators 

16. 31 Increasing 

penalties for 

intimidation 

Deters offenders 

by increasing risk 

... intimidation is a 

felony-level offense; 

sentences must be 

served consecutively 

Cases of intimidation are 

difficult to prove; no general 

deterrent effect 

17. 31 Prosecuting 

intimidators 

Deters offenders 

by increasing risk 

... intimidation is 

a consideration in 

revoking parole or 

probation 

Cases of intimidation can be 

difficult to prove 

Responses With Limited Effectiveness 

18. 31 Increasing 

patrol in target 

area 

Increases 

surveillance of 

danger area 

Consumes considerable 

resources; chances of 

actually intervening in an 

incident are slim 

19. 31 Compelling 

witnesses to 

testify 

Transfers 

responsibility for 

the decision to 

testify from the 

witness to the 

prosecutor 

May backfire and cause 

witnesses to claim they do 

not remember the events 

in question; may not 

eradicate the perception that 

witnesses are cooperating 

voluntarily 

Endnotes 39 

Endnotes 

1. Maynard (1994). 2. Johnson, Webster and Connors (1995). 3. Finn and Healey (1996); Elliot (1998). 4. Fyfe and McKay (2000a). 5. Healey (1995). 6. Davis, Smith and Henley (1990); Maynard (1994). 7. Elliot (1998); Fyfe (2001). 8. Davis, Smith and Henley (1990). 9. Healey (1995); Finn and Healey (1996); Butterfield (2005). 10. Healey (1995). 11. Finn and Healey (1996). 12. Fyfe (2001). 13. Davis, Smith and Henley (1990); Buzawa and Buzawa 

(1996); Comparet-Casani (2002). 14. Davis, Smith and Henley (1990); Elliot (1998); Whitehead 

(2001); Hamlyn et al. (2004). 15. Finn and Healey (1996). 16. Davis, Smith and Henley (1990); Burgess et al. (2003). 17. Healey (1995). 18. Finn and Healey (1996). 19. Healey (1995). 20. Fyfe (2001); Burgess et al. (2003). 21. Elliot (1998). 22. Davis, Smith and Henley (1990); Healey (1995); Finn and 

Healey (1996); Elliot (1998). 23. Buzawa and Buzawa (1996). 24. Finn and Healey (1996); Elliot (1998). 25. Healey (1995). 26. Finn and Healey (1996); Davis and Henderson (2003). 27. Institute for Law and Justice (1993); Johnson, Webster 

and Connors (1995). 28. Connick and Davis (1983); Davis, Smith and Henley 

(1990); Fyfe and McKay (2000b). 29. Finn and Healey (1996); Fyfe (2001); Whitehead (2001). 30. Comparet-Casani (2002). 
40 Witness Intimidation 

31. Comparet-Casani (2002). 32. Fyfe and McKay (2000a). 33. Elliot (1998). 34. U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Victims of 

Crime (1998). 35. Plotnikoff and Woolfson (1997). 36. Healey (1995). 37. Finn and Healey (1996). 38. Fyfe (2001). 39. Tomz and McGillis (1997). 40. Healey (1995). 41. Finn and Healey (1996). 42. Finn and Healey (1996). 43. Healey (1995); Finn and Healey (1996). 44. Elliot (1998); Fyfe and McKay (2000a). 45. Finn and Healey (1996). 46. Fyfe (2001). 47. Fyfe (2001). 48. Elliot (1998); Finn and Healey (1996). 49. Comparet-Casani (2002). 50. Great Britain, Home Office (2001). 51. Butterfield (2005). 52. Lloyd, Farrell and Pease (1994). 53. Elliot (1998). 54. Gaines (2003). 55. U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Victims of 

Crime (1997). 56. Finn and Lee (1985). 57. Younger (1979); Healey (1995). 58. Finn and Lee (1985). 59. Tomz and McGillis (1997). 60. Maynard (1994). 61. Elliot (1998). 62. Healey (1995). 63. Hamlyn et al. (2004). 
E

ndnotes 41 

64. 

Finn and Healey (1996). 65. Healey (1995). 66. Fyfe and McKay (2000a); 

Fyfe (2001). 67. Finn and Healey (1996). 68. Gaines (2003). 69. Finn and Healey (1996); Gaines (2003); 

Kash (2004). 70. Slate (1997). 71. Slate (1997). 72. Fyfe (2001). 73. Healey (1995). 74. Connick and Davis (1983); Hamlyn et al. (2004); Finn and Healey (1996). 75. Finn and Healey (1996). 76. Maynard (1994); Finn and Healey (1996). 77. Healey (1995); Finn and Healey (1996). 78. Finn and Healey (1996). 79. Studnicki and Apol (2002). 80. Rogan (1999). 81. Fyfe and Sheptycki (2005). 

References 43 

References 

Bauer, R., C. Hasler, M. Myrent, R. Przybylski, G. Ramker 

and J. Travis (1997). An Evaluation of the Illinois State Police 

Gang Crime Witness Protection Program. Chicago: Illinois 

Criminal Justice Information Authority. 

Burgess, R., N. Abigail, M. Lacriarde and J. Hawkins (2003). 

Disrupting Crack Markets: A Practice Guide. London: Home 

Office, Drug Strategy Directorate. 

Butterfield, F. “Guns and Jeers Used by Gangs to Buy 

Silence.” New York Times, January 16, 2005. 

Buzawa, E., and C. Buzawa (eds.) (1996). Do Arrests and 

Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks (California): Sage. 

Catalano, S. (2004). Criminal Victimization, 2004. Washington, 

DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Comparet-Casani, J. (2002). “Balancing the Anonymity of 

Threatened Witnesses Versus a Defendant’s Right of 

Confrontation: The Waiver Doctrine After Alvarado.” San 

Diego Law Review 39(4): 1165-1252. 

Connick, E., and R. Davis (1983). “Examining the Problem 

of Witness Intimidation.” Judicature 66(10): 439-447. 

Davis, R., and N. Henderson (2003). “Willingness to Report 

Crimes: The Role of Ethnic Group Membership and 

Community Efficacy.” Crime & Delinquency 49(4): 564-580. 

Davis, R., B. Smith and M. Henley (1990). Victim/Witness 

Intimidation in the Bronx Courts: How Common Is It, and What 

Are Its Consequences? New York: Victim Services Agency. 
44 Witness Intimidation 

Elliott, R. (1998). “Vulnerable and Intimidated Witnesses: 

A Review of the Literature.” In Speaking Up for Justice. 

London: Home Office. 

Felson, R., S. Messner, A. Hoskin and G. Deane (2002). 

"Reasons for Reporting and Not Reporting Domestic 

Violence to the Police." Criminology 40(3): 617-647. 

Finn, P., and K. Healey (1996). Preventing Gang and DrugRelated Witness Intimidation. NIJ Issues and Practices Series. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Institute of Justice. 

Finn, P., and B. Lee (1985). “Working With Victim/Witness 

Assistance Programs: Benefits for Law Enforcement.” 

Police Chief 52(6): 54-57, 60. 

Fyfe, N. (2001). Protecting Intimidated Witnesses. Aldershot 

(United Kingdom), Burlington (Vermont): Ashgate. 

Fyfe, N., and H. McKay (1999). Making It Safe To Speak? A 

Study of Witness Intimidation and Protection in Strathclyde. 

Edinburgh: Scottish Office Central Research Unit. 

Fyfe, N., and H. McKay (2000a). “Police Protection of 

Intimidated Witnesses: A Study of the Strathclyde Police 

Witness Protection Programme.” Policing and Society 10(3): 

277-299. 

Fyfe, N., and H. McKay (2000b). “Witness Intimidation, 

Forced Migration and Resettlement: A British Case 

Study.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 

25(1): 77-90. 

Fyfe, N. and J. Sheptycki (2005). Facilitating Witness Cooperation 

in Organized Crime Cases: An International Review. London: 

Home Office. 
References 45 

Gaines, C. (2003). “Witness Intimidation.” United States 

Attorneys’ Bulletin 51(1): 5-10. 

Goldkamp, J., D. Gottfredson and J. Moore (1999). 

Implementing Local Criminal Justice Strategies: Developing 

Measures of Performance in 36 Bureau of Justice Assistance Open 

Solicitation Sites. Philadelphia: Crime and Justice Research 

Institute. 

Great Britain Home Office (2001). Early Special Measures 

Meetings Between the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service and 

Meetings Between the Crown Prosecution Service and Vulnerable or 

Intimidated Witnesses: Practice Guide. London: Great Britain 

Home Office Communication Directorate. 

Hamlyn, B., A. Phelps, J. Turtle and G. Sattar (2004). Are 

Special Measures Working? Evidence From Surveys of Vulnerable 

and Intimidated Witnesses. Home Office Research Study, No. 

283. London: Home Office Research, Development and 

Statistics Directorate. 

Healey, K. (1995). Victim and Witness Intimidation: New 

Developments and Emerging Responses. Research in Action 

Series. Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Institute of 

Justice. 

Institute for Law and Justice (1993). Gang Prosecution in the 

United States. Alexandria (Virginia): Institute for Law and 

Justice. 

Johnson, C., B. Webster and E. Connors (1995). Prosecuting 

Gangs: A National Assessment. NIJ Research in Brief 

Series. Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Institute of 

Justice. 
46 Witness Intimidation 

Karmen, A. (2004). Crime Victims: An Introduction to Victimology. 

5th ed. Belmont (California): Wadsworth/Thomson. 

Kash, D. (2004). “Hiding in Plain Sight: A Peek into the 

Witness Security Program.” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 

73(5): 25-32. 

Lloyd, S., G. Farrell and K. Pease (1994). Preventing Repeat 

Domestic Violence: A Demonstration Project on Merseyside. 

London: Home Office Police Research Group. 

Maynard, W. (1994). Witness Intimidation: Strategies for Prevention. 

Crime Detection and Prevention Series, No. 55. London: 

Home Office Police Research Group. 

Plotnikoff, J., and R. Woolfson (1997). Options for Improved 

Support for Victims and Other Witnesses Attending Magistrates’ 

Courts. Unpublished report. London: Home Office. 

Rogan, L. (1999). “Price of Protecting Our Children: The 

Dilemma of Allowing Children to Testify as Key Witnesses 

to Gang Violence.” Journal of Juvenile Law 20: 127-140. 

Slate, R. (1997). “The Federal Witness Protection Program: Its 

Evolution and Continuing Growing Pains.” Criminal Justice 

Ethics 16(2): 20-34. 

Studnicki, S., and J. Apol (2002). “Witness Detention and 

Intimidation: The History and Future of Material Witness 

Law.” St. John’s Law Review 76(3): 483-533. 

Tomz, J., and D. McGillis (1997). Serving Crime Victims and 

Witnesses, 2d ed. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, National Institute of Justice. 
References 47 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General 

(2000). Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and 

Witness Assistance. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 

of Justice. Available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/ 

publications/infores/agg2000. 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime 

(1997). Law Enforcement’s Promising Practices in the Treatment 

of Crime Victims: A Report to Promote the Development and 

Expansion of Victim-Oriented Policies and Practices in Law 

Enforcement Agencies. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 

of Justice. 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime 

(1998). New Directions From the Field: Victims’ Rights and 

Services for the Twenty-First Century. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

Whitehead, E. (2001). Witness Satisfaction: Findings from the 

Witness Satisfaction Survey 2000. Home Office Research 

Study, No. 230. London: Home Office Research, 

Development and Statistics Directorate. 

Younger, E. (1979). “The Neglected Problem of Witness 

Intimidation.” Judges’ Journal 18(4):20-24. 

About the Author 49 

About the Author 

Kelly Dedel 

Kelly Dedel is the director of One in 37 Research, Inc., a criminal 

justice consulting firm based in Portland, Oregon. As a consultant 

to federal, state, and local agencies, she contributes to research on 

the juvenile and criminal justice systems by 1) developing written 

tools to enhance practice or inform public policy; 2) conducting 

investigations of confinement conditions in juvenile correctional 

facilities; and 3) undertaking rigorous evaluations of various juvenile 

and criminal justice programs to assess their effectiveness. She has 

provided evaluation-related technical assistance to more than 60 

jurisdictions nationwide for the Bureau of Justice Assistance. In 

this capacity, she has worked with a broad range of criminal justice 

programs implemented by police, prosecutors, public defenders, 

juvenile detention and confinement facilities, local jails, community 

corrections, and prisons. She consults with the Justice Department as 

a monitor/investigator of civil rights violations in juvenile correctional 

facilities, most often in the areas of education and protection from 

harm. Among her other research interests are prisoner reentry, 

risk assessment and offender classification, and juveniles in adult 

correctional facilities. Before working as a consultant, she was a 

founder and senior research scientist at The Institute on Crime, 

Justice, and Corrections at The George Washington University, and 

a senior research associate at the National Council on Crime and 

Delinquency. Dedel received bachelor’s degrees in psychology and 

criminal justice from the University of Richmond and a doctorate 

in clinical psychology from the Center for Psychological Studies, in 

Berkeley, California. 

Recommended Readings 51 

Recommended Readings 

• A Police Guide to Surveying Citizens and Their 

Environments, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1993. This 

guide offers a practical introduction for police practitioners 

to two types of surveys that police find useful: surveying 

public opinion and surveying the physical environment. It 

provides guidance on whether and how to conduct costeffective surveys. 

• Assessing Responses to Problems: An 

Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers, 

by John E. Eck (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services, 2001). This guide 

is a companion to the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series. 

It provides basic guidance to measuring and assessing 

problem-oriented policing efforts. 

• Conducting Community Surveys, by Deborah Weisel 

(Bureau of Justice Statistics and Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services, 1999). This guide, along with 

accompanying computer software, provides practical, basic 

pointers for police in conducting community surveys. The 

document is also available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs. 

• Crime Prevention Studies, edited by Ronald V. Clarke 

(Criminal Justice Press, 1993, et seq.). This is a series of 

volumes of applied and theoretical research on reducing 

opportunities for crime. Many chapters are evaluations of 

initiatives to reduce specific crime and disorder problems. 
52 Witness Intimidation 

• Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing:The 

1999 Herman Goldstein Award Winners. This 

document produced by the National Institute of Justice 

in collaboration with the Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services and the Police Executive Research Forum 

provides detailed reports of the best submissions to the 

annual award program that recognizes exemplary problemoriented responses to various community problems. A 

similar publication is available for the award winners from 

subsequent years. The documents are also available at 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij. 

• Not Rocket Science? Problem-Solving and Crime 

Reduction, by Tim Read and Nick Tilley (Home Office 

Crime Reduction Research Series, 2000). Identifies and 

describes the factors that make problem-solving effective 

or ineffective as it is being practiced in police forces in 

England and Wales. 

• Opportunity Makes the Thief: Practical Theory 

for Crime Prevention, by Marcus Felson and Ronald V. 

Clarke (Home Office Police Research Series, Paper No. 98, 

1998). Explains how crime theories such as routine activity 

theory, rational choice theory and crime pattern theory 

have practical implications for the police in their efforts to 

prevent crime. 

• Problem Analysis in Policing, by Rachel Boba (Police 

Foundation, 2003). Introduces and defines problem 

analysis and provides guidance on how problem analysis 

can be integrated and institutionalized into modern 

policing practices. 
Recommended Readings 53

• Problem-Oriented Policing, by Herman Goldstein 

(McGraw-Hill, 1990, and Temple University Press, 1990). 

Explains the principles and methods of problem-oriented 

policing, provides examples of it in practice, and discusses 

how a police agency can implement the concept. 

• Problem-Oriented Policing and Crime Prevention, 

by Anthony A. Braga (Criminal Justice Press, 2003). 

Provides a thorough review of significant policing research 

about problem places, high-activity offenders, and repeat 

victims, with a focus on the applicability of those findings 

to problem-oriented policing. Explains how police 

departments can facilitate problem-oriented policing by 

improving crime analysis, measuring performance, and 

securing productive partnerships. 

• Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the 

First 20 Years, by Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 

2000). Describes how the most critical elements of 

Herman Goldstein's problem-oriented policing model have 

developed in practice over its 20-year history, and proposes 

future directions for problem-oriented policing. The report 

is also available at www.cops.usdoj.gov. 

• Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in 

Newport News, by John E. Eck and William Spelman 

(Police Executive Research Forum, 1987). Explains the 

rationale behind problem-oriented policing and the 

problem-solving process, and provides examples of 

effective problem-solving in one agency. 
54 Witness Intimidation 

• Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing 

Crime and Disorder Through Problem-Solving 

Partnerships by Karin Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott 

Phillips, Tammy Rinehart and Meg Townsend. (U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, 1998) (also available at www.cops.usdoj. 

gov). Provides a brief introduction to problem-solving, 

basic information on the SARA model and detailed 

suggestions about the problem-solving process. 

• Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case 

Studies, Second Edition, edited by Ronald V. Clarke 

(Harrow and Heston, 1997). Explains the principles and 

methods of situational crime prevention, and presents over 

20 case studies of effective crime prevention initiatives. 

• Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety 

Problems: Case Studies in Problem-Solving, by 

Rana Sampson and Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 

2000) (also available at www.cops.usdoj.gov). Presents case 

studies of effective police problem-solving on 18 types of 

crime and disorder problems. 

• Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook 

for Law Enforcement, by Timothy S. Bynum (U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, 2001). Provides an introduction for 

police to analyzing problems within the context of 

problem-oriented policing. 

• Using Research: A Primer for Law Enforcement 

Managers, Second Edition, by John E. Eck and Nancy G. 

LaVigne (Police Executive Research Forum, 1994). Explains 

many of the basics of research as it applies to police 

management and problem-solving. 
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 55 

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides series: 

1. Assaults in and Around Bars. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-00-2 

2. Street Prostitution. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-01-0 

3. Speeding in Residential Areas. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-02-9 

4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes. 

Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-03-7 

5. False Burglar Alarms. Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-04-5 

6. Disorderly Youth in Public Places. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-05-3 

7. Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-06-1 

8. Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-07-X 

9. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-08-8 

10. Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. Ronald V. 

Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-09-6 

11. Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-10-X 

12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-11-8 

13. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-12-6 

14. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-13-4 

15. Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-14-2 

16. Clandestine Drug Labs. Michael S. Scott. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-15-0 

17. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-16-9 

18. Burglary of Single-Family Houses. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 

2002. ISBN: 1-932582-17-7 

19. Misuse and Abuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-18-5 

20. Financial Crimes Against the Elderly. 

Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-22-3 
56 Witness Intimidation 

21. Check and Card Fraud. Graeme R. Newman. 2003. 

ISBN: 1-932582-27-4 

22. Stalking. The National Center for Victims of Crime. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-30-4 

23. Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders. Anthony A. 

Braga. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-31-2 

24. Prescription Fraud. Julie Wartell and Nancy G. La Vigne. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-33-9 

25. Identity Theft. Graeme R. Newman. 2004 ISBN: 1-932582-35-3 

26. Crimes Against Tourists. Ronald W. Glesnor and Kenneth J. Peak. 

2004 ISBN: 1-932582-36-3 

27. Underage Drinking. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2004 ISBN: 1-932582-39-8 

28. Street Racing. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-42-8 

29. Cruising. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-43-6 

30. Disorder at Budget Motels. Karin Schmerler. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X 

31. Drug Dealing in Open-Air Markets. Alex Harocopos and Mike 

Hough. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-45-2 

32. Bomb Threats in Schools. Graeme R. Newman. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-46-0 

33. Illicit Sexual Activity in Public Places. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-47-9 

34. Robbery of Taxi Drivers. Martha J. Smith. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-50-9 

35. School Vandalism and Break-Ins. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-9325802-51-7 

36. Drunk Driving. Michael S. Scott, Nina J. Emerson, Louis B. 

Antonacci, and Joel B. Plant. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-57-6 

37. Juvenile Runaways. Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1932582-56-8 

38. The Exploitation of Trafficked Women. Graeme R. Newman. 

2006. ISBN: 1-932582-59-2 

39. Student Party Riots. Tamara D. Madensen and John E. Eck. 

2006. ISBN: 1-932582-60-6 

40. People with Mental Illness. Gary Cordner. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-63-0 
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 57 

41. Child Pornography on the Internet. Richard Wortley 

and Stephen Smallbone. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-65-7 

42. Witness Intimidation. Kelly Dedel. 2006. 

ISBN: 1-932582-67-3 

Response Guides series: 

• The Benefits and Consequences of Police 

Crackdowns. Michael S. Scott. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-24-X 

• Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime: Should 

You Go Down This Road? Ronald V. Clarke. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X 

• Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns. 

Emmanuel Barthe. 2006 ISBN: 1-932582-66-5 

• Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety 

Problems. Michael S. Scott and Herman Goldstein. 

2005. ISBN: 1-932582-55-X 

• Video Surveillance of Public Places. Jerry Ratcliffe. 

2006 ISBN: 1-932582-58-4 

Problem-Solving Tools series: 

• Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory 

Guide for Police Problem-Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-19-3 

• Researching a Problem. Ronald V. Clarke and Phyllis A. 

Schultz. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-48-7 

• Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police Problem 

Solving. Scott H. Decker. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-49-5 

• Analyzing Repeat Victimization. Deborah Lamm 

Weisel. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-54-1 
58 Witness Intimidation 

Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides 

Domestic Violence 

Bank Robbery 

Drive-by Shootings 

Disorder at Day Laborer Sites 

Crowd Control at Stadiums and Other Entertainment Venues 

Traffic Congestion Around Schools 

Theft from Construction Sites of Single Family Houses 

Robbery of Convenience Stores 

Theft from Cars on Streets 

Problem-Solving Tools 

Risky Facilities 

Implementing Responses to Problems 

Designing a Problem Analysis System 

Response Guides 

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design 

For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for 

Police series and other COPS Office publications, please call 

the COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 or visit 

COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov. 

For More InForMatIon: 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20530 

To obtain details on COPS programs, call the 

COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 

Visit COPS Online at the address listed below. 

e07063407 July 2006 

ISBN: 1-932582-67-3 

www.cops.usdoj.gov