Gang-Related Witness Intimidation

By: John Anderson, Assistant District Attorney, Orange County District Attorney’s Office, Santa Ana, California

No. 1 February 2007

Introduction

Intimidation of victims and witnesses by gang members 

is a significant problem throughout all regions of the 

United States. Witness intimidation infringes upon 

the effective and fair operation of the criminal justice 

system. Simply put, without witnesses, the system 

will not work. As aptly stated in a National Institute of 

Justice study on the issue:

Witness intimidation—which includes threats 

against the victims of crime—strikes at the 

root of the criminal justice system by denying 

critical evidence to police investigators and 

prosecutors and undermining the confidence 

of the whole community in the government’s 

ability to protect and represent the members 

of the community.1

Unfortunately, gang members so frequently engage 

in witness intimidation that it is considered part of 

normal gang behavioral dynamics. Intimidation may 

be aimed at individual witnesses, either in a direct or 

indirect fashion, or may be something felt by an entire 

community living with the impact of an active criminal 

street gang in its midst. Meaningful control of gang 

crime requires minimizing the incidents and effects of 

gang-related witness intimidation. 

A number of strategies exist to offset the impacts of 

gang-related witness intimidation.2 Traditionally used 

strategies include intensive witness management, 

immediate apprehension and aggressive prosecution 

of intimidators, setting high bail in cases of gang 

violence (especially gang-related witness intimidation), 

creation and use of influential victim/witness assistance 

programs, and occasional relocation of threatened 

witnesses. Promising new approaches include 

increasing prosecutions of witness intimidation 

incidents and amending the rules of evidence in some 

states to allow the admission of a prior sworn statement 

or grand-jury testimony if the defendant causes the 

witness to be unavailable.

Scope of the Problem

Criminal activity by street gangs remains a critical 

nationwide phenomenon. The 2004 National Youth 

Gang Survey estimated that there were approximately 

760,000 gang members and 24,000 gangs active in the 

United States. The gangs are reported in all areas of the 

country, from urban to rural.3 In the 2000 National Youth 

Gang Survey, “witness intimidation by gang members 

was reported as a common occurrence by 66 percent of 

respondents, ranging from 44 percent in smaller areas to 

83 percent of respondents in larger areas.”4 The problem 

of gang-related witness intimidation is so significant 

that 82 percent of the police agencies responding to the 

2000 survey indicated that measures were being taken 

to deal with the problem. 

The National Alliance of Gang Investigators Associations 

reported in its 2005 National Gang Threat Assessment that 

today’s gangs are “sophisticated and flagrant in their use 

of violence and intimidation tactics.” Respondents to the 

threat assessment indicated that witness intimidation 

was a frequent activity of gangs and remains a sizeable 

problem in all regions of the United States. Perhaps most 

notable, the mere presence of gangs in a community was 

reported as creating a generalized fear of intimidation 

that hinders witness cooperation.5

Recent examples of gang-related witness intimidation 

are numerous and often shockingly brutal. The 

Los Angeles Police Department reported a yearly 

average of more than 778 gang-related witness 

intimidation offenses over a five-year period ending 

in December 2005.6 Specific recent examples of 

intimidation and retaliation underscore the necessity 

for focused attention on and zero tolerance for witness 

intimidation. The examples include:

In Baltimore, Maryland, a 17-year-old cooperative 

witness to a gang murder was shot in the back 

of his head by two fellow members of the 

suspect’s gang.7 

In Virginia, a 17-year-old girl, who was four 

months pregnant, was found hacked to death on 

the bank of a river. She was a witness to a gang 

murder in the state of Texas and had been in 

the federal witness protection program, which 


she voluntarily left, rejoining her gang (the 

perpetrators of the murder she had witnessed). 

She was killed for her cooperation.8 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

(ICE) added a Los Angeles gang member to 

its most-wanted-fugitives list after he went 

into hiding following his arrest for raping a 12-

year-old girl and witness intimidation in 2001. 

The rape charges were dropped after “the chief 

witness in the case was found murdered.”9

One final indication of the pervasiveness of gang 

witness intimidation comes from the former president 

of the National District Attorneys Association, 

Bob McColloch, the prosecuting attorney in St. Louis 

County, Missouri, who testified in 2005 before the United 

States Senate Judiciary Committee that “prosecutors 

across the country believe that the issue of witness 

intimidation is the single biggest hurdle facing any 

successful gang prosecution.”10

Nature and Extent of 

Intimidation

Witness intimidation comes in many forms, none 

less intimidating than the others. Defendants often 

intimidate or cause others to intimidate witnesses in 

hopes of causing the witnesses to withhold, change, 

or falsify testimony. Typically, the defendant, fellow 

gang members, or even nongang friends or family 

perpetrate the act(s) of intimidation. The pressure 

on the witnesses is normally increased to prevent the 

witnesses from testifying as important court dates near, 

such as preliminary hearings or trials.

One factor increasing the odds of intimidation occurring 

is the voice of the initial crime. Further, the greater the 

possible penalty for a crime, the greater the desire of a 

defendant to prevent witnesses from coming forward. 

Intimidation potential increases when the defendant has 

a personal connection to the witness (e.g., they went to 

school together or grew up in the same neighborhood). 

A witness who lives near a defendant or within the 

territory of the defendant’s gang, or whose address is 

known to the defendant, is particularly vulnerable. 

Direct Intimidation11

Overt/Explicit Threats

Perhaps the most common form of witness intimidation 

is the use of explicit threats of physical violence. These 

threats are effective because of the reputation and 

history of violence of the defendant’s gang. Also, threats 

frequently are made during crimes of violence. The threat 

takes on added significance given the level of violence 

or threat used to perpetrate the initial crime. Homeinvasion robberies are prime examples of how seriously a 

threat of future harm is taken by victims of violent crime, 

given the outrageous levels of violence inflicted on the 

victims during the commission of a robbery.

Physical Violence

Physical violence is a common form of direct witness 

intimidation. Gang members usually do not murder 

the witnesses they are intimidating. Instead, physical 

beatings are perpetrated by fists and feet or the use of 

a weapon. Witness murders, however, do happen with 

tragic frequency.12

Implicit Threats

Sometimes, gang members intimidate without physical 

violence. Merely staring at a witness or driving slowly 

by the witness’s house with the witness watching can 

intimidate the witness. Anonymous phone calls or 

letters mentioning the case without an explicit threat, 

a photocopy of a police report with the witness’s name, 

a court transcript with the witness’s testimony, or new 

gang graffiti near the witness’s home are other forms 

of implicit threats. 

Property Damage

Another form of intimidation is harming or destroying 

a witness’s property. Examples of this tactic include 

shooting or throwing objects at a witness’s house or 

car, firebombing property, slashing tires, spray-painting 

graffiti, or hurting pets.

Courtroom Intimidation

It is not uncommon for gang members to sit or stand 

outside a courthouse or courtroom where their fellow 

gang member is on trial. Such an atmosphere breeds 

fear, considering its location, because the witnesses fear 

the gang members are there to watch the witnesses 

testify. Gang members also pack the courtroom; stare 

at a witness before and during testimony, if permitted 

by the presiding judge; make verbal or nonverbal 

threats; wear black clothing or clothing with messages 

(e.g., “stop snitching” or “not guilty”); and take or 

pretend to take pictures of the witness with a camera 

cell phone.13

Implicit Intimidation

Implicit intimidation occurs when witnesses face a real 

but unexpressed threat of harm. For example, significant 

ongoing gang violence in a neighborhood creates a 

communitywide atmosphere of fear. Witnesses rightly 

fret when they know the suspect or defendant is a gang 

member. Victims of violent gang crime have personally 

experienced the type of violence the gang inflicts. 

Fear of further violence should the witness testify 

is a reasonable, legitimate concern. This concern is 

obviously magnified when the crimes are perpetrated in 

the homes or businesses of the victims. At times, implicit 

intimidation has the same effect on witnesses, even 

when the gang takes no direct intimidation action. 


Communitywide Intimidation

Gang members often openly and notoriously commit 

crime in their turf or neighborhood. It is not uncommon 

for neighborhood residents to observe or be victims of 

violent crime. Gang members are present in the streets, 

and their graffiti on the walls is a constant reminder 

of their criminality. Neighborhood residents also see 

gang members being detained and field-interviewed or 

arrested by police. All of these factors produce resident 

fear of the gang members and retaliation, should the 

residents ever cooperate with the police.14 

A further issue with using neighborhood residents as 

witnesses is that they know the gang members as relatives 

of other neighbors or friends. Cooperating witnesses 

thus face possible public ridicule for turning against the 

gang members. At a minimum, it is impossible to keep 

secret one’s cooperation with the police under such 

circumstances. Gangs also often exist in neighborhoods 

with sizeable immigrant populations who are fearful 

or distrustful of the police. Finally, given the lack of 

cooperation in police investigations, it is not unusual for 

neighborhood residents to see gang members quickly 

returning to the streets following an arrest. This dynamic 

further frightens residents against cooperation.15

Witness-Protection Programs

Law enforcement must always take seriously the 

potential for witness intimidation in gang-related cases. 

Reports of intimidation should be taken immediately. 

Risks and ways to mitigate or eliminate the risks should 

be explained to witnesses. Police and prosecutors 

should never promise more protection than available 

and should document all offers of protection and 

discussions about the risks caused by cooperating. Law 

enforcement officials should also insist that protected 

witnesses strictly adhere to the conditions of relocation 

or other assistance. Finally, cooperating witnesses 

need to know that they are only being protected and 

not immunized from the liability of future criminal acts 

(especially retaliation when the witness is a cooperating 

rival gang member). 

Witness-protection strategies and programs exist on 

the federal, state, and local level. More comprehensive 

witness-protection programs address the biggest 

precursor of gang-witness intimidation—known 

location and accessibility of the witnesses against a 

defendant by that defendant. Relocation of vulnerable, 

intimidated, or threatened witnesses and immediate 

family members is the surest way to protect the 

witnesses against actual harm and is the main objective 

of the best witness-protection programs.

Witness Relocation

At times, relocating witnesses is critical to ensure 

their safety. It is also imperative to assuage the 

fears of victims or witnesses of physical violence. 

Occasionally, witnesses themselves will bear the cost 

of relocation. Typically, however, witnesses lack the 

financial wherewithal to quickly relocate. Relocation 

is used in emergency situations for up to a week, when 

a credible threat is made that necessitates removing 

the witness from the threatening environment. Shortterm relocation lasting for more than a week (up to a 

year) can also occur during the pendency of a case. 

Usually, intimidation efforts cease following a witness’s 

testimony. It is reported that few gang members want 

to risk incarceration for retaliating against a witness 

following the witness’s testimony.16

Sometimes, however, permanent relocation is necessary. 

This is because the case either lingers in court for a 

long time or the nature of the intimidation indicates the 

threat will remain following the conclusion of the case. 

Relocation is most easily accomplished if the witness 

lives in public housing. The housing authority in the 

jurisdiction commonly arranges moving from one project 

to another. Renters are the next easiest group to relocate. 

Moving expenses, security deposits, and, perhaps, firstand last-month rents are provided to witnesses who rent. 

It is nearly impossible to relocate witnesses who own 

their homes, because most police or prosecution agencies 

or statewide witness-protection programs lack the 

resources to purchase witnesses’ houses, condominiums, 

or mobile homes. This problem is particularly acute 

during times of recession in the housing market, when 

witnesses face a loss on the sale of their homes. 

Relocation is often necessary and is always expensive. 

In California, for example, the California Witness 

Protection Program, which pays for witness-relocation 

expenses, has distributed $10,511,540 in witnessprotection funds since its founding in 1998. From 

July 1, 2003, to June 30, 2004, the program paid to relocate 

1,367 witnesses and their relatives. More than 74 percent 

of the relocations were on gang-related cases.17

Specific Witness-Protection Programs

Witness-protection programs utilize some or all of the 

strategies discussed in the Comprehensive WitnessSecurity Strategies section below. Arguably, the more 

strategies a witness-protection program incorporates, 

the more protection the program affords witnesses. 

Comprehensive witness-protection programs are costly 

and available in only a minority of states. Fortunately, a 

good level of witness protection is still available in states 

with limited witness-protection program funding.

The best-known witness-protection program is the 

Federal Witness Security Program, which is used in 

federal organized crime and racketeering offenses, 

drug-trafficking cases, other serious federal felonies, 

and any state offenses similar in nature to the qualifying 

federal crimes, in which the life of a witness is placed 

in jeopardy as a result of testifying for the government. 

The Federal Witness Security Program provides 

suitable documents to enable witnesses to establish 

new identities, living expenses, and housing, and to 

transport household furniture and personal property. 

It also assists witnesses in obtaining employment and 

provides services to aid witnesses in becoming self-


sustaining. Persons admitted into the program must 

agree to testify or provide investigatory information 

to the sponsoring law enforcement agency, must not 

commit any crime, must not reveal their participation in 

the program, and must comply with a number of other 

provisions designed to ensure the participants’ security 

and continued cooperation with law enforcement. State 

witnesses may also be admitted to the program, but 

only if the state agrees to reimburse the United States 

government for all expenses incurred.18 

Many states have witness-protection programs that 

reimburse local agencies for the cost of providing 

temporary protective services. Others, like Kentucky and 

Connecticut, further reimburse for temporary relocation 

of a witness (and immediate family if endangered) during 

critical periods of a court proceeding (e.g., preliminary 

hearings or trials), when witnesses are in most danger 

of retaliation.19 Massachusetts created a new statewide 

witness-protection program in January 2006. The 

enabling legislation includes a budget of $750,000 for the 

program. Services available to witnesses include armed 

protection or escorts, surveillance of the witnesses’ 

residences, and physical relocation, if necessary. The 

program is designed to provide protection during the 

duration of a criminal case. 20

The most comprehensive state witness-protection 

programs mimic the Federal Witness Security Program 

in breadth of available services. The California 

Witness Protection Program is a good example of 

such a comprehensive statewide program. The 

program reimburses local law enforcement agencies 

for a number of services: costs of providing armed 

protection or escort by law enforcement before, 

during, or after legal proceedings; physical relocation 

of endangered witnesses and immediate family 

members; housing expenses; appropriate documents 

to establish new identity; transportation (or storage) 

of personal possessions; basic living expenses 

(e.g., food, transportation, utility costs, and health 

care); and any other services determined by the state 

attorney general as necessary.21 The state of Delaware’s 

witness-protection program covers all of the same 

type of expenses reimbursed in California and also 

provides for assisting protected persons in obtaining 

employment in their new locations.22

In states without an organized statewide program, local 

police and prosecution agencies are forced to deal with 

witness-intimidation issues on their own, with limited or 

no reimbursement for protective services from the state. 

Despite this disadvantage, there are many low-cost, yet 

effective, witness-protection strategies still available. 

Police and prosecutors can protect witnesses by 

redacting witnesses’ names and identifying information 

on police reports until discovery is absolutely necessary, 

requesting high bail for gang-member offenders, 

aggressively investigating and prosecuting witnessintimidation cases, providing witnesses with easy 

access to investigators and prosecutors during the 

pendency of criminal investigations and prosecutions, 

ensuring courtroom security in collaboration with judges 

and court security staff, and arranging safe custodial 

accommodations for incarcerated witnesses. 

Comprehensive WitnessSecurity Strategies

Historically, four approaches have been used to prevent 

or minimize the effects of witness intimidation. They 

include requesting high bail for defendants charged 

with the original crime or for defendants charged with 

intimidation, aggressively prosecuting intimidators, 

conscientiously managing witnesses, and utilizing 

victim/witness programs.

Requesting High Bail

Keeping gang-member intimidators locked up reduces 

the opportunities to intimidate and enhances the safety 

of cooperating witnesses. Therefore, it is imperative to 

seek appropriately high bails for the defendants of gangrelated crime (especially violent crime) and intimidation 

or for those who intimidate at the defendant’s behest. 

Seeking high bail is particularly appropriate in 

jurisdictions allowing judges to consider a defendant’s 

danger to the community, as opposed to merely the 

prospects of the defendant’s appearance in court. 

Some jurisdictions limit bail determinations to an 

amount designed to ensure the defendant’s future court 

appearances. Thorough research is needed in such 

jurisdictions regarding the defendant’s prior-appearance 

record, including any failure to appear for seemingly 

insignificant offenses, such as traffic violations. Most 

states also allow for a hearing to determine whether 

the source of the bail is legitimate and not from criminal 

proceeds. In cases involving drug-trafficking gangs, 

these hearings frequently keep defendants in custody 

or delay their release.

Vigorous Witness-Intimidation Prosecution

Vigorous, immediate prosecutions of witness intimidators 

are critical. A message must be sent that such action 

will not be tolerated. The charges must stick, however, 

or the message perceived by gang members is that 

they are invincible and that the police and prosecutors 

make hollow threats. Expedited and thorough police 

investigations are necessary.

Some states have weak intimidation laws carrying 

misdemeanor or low-grade felony penalties. Alternatives 

to intimidation charges include (if the intimidator is 

on probation or parole) warning the defendant when 

arrested or at the first court appearance of the legal 

consequences of intimidation, issuing a “stay-away” 

order to the defendant, and advising the defendant’s 

fellow gang members or family members of the penal 

consequences of intimidation. A defendant’s fellow 

gang or family members can usually be prosecuted 

as accessories after the fact for attempting to help 

the defendant avoid prosecution by intimidating the 

witnesses. Typically, the crime of accessory to a felony 

carries a felony sentence. 


Conscientious Witness Management

It is critical to reassure a witness that intimidation will 

be aggressively investigated and vigorously prosecuted. 

It is even more important to follow through on that 

assurance. Police and/or prosecutors should arrange 

protection immediately, if needed, and establish “24/7” 

access to an investigating officer, a district attorney 

investigator, or even the prosecutor. Police can arrange 

for routine patrol checks near the witness’s residence 

or place of business. 

At times, it is necessary to provide material support 

(cash for food or referrals to social-service providers) 

to a witness. It is important to regularly check on the 

witness’s whereabouts and safety. Vertical prosecution 

(the same specialized prosecutor handling the case from 

start to finish at all phases of court proceedings) allows 

a prosecutor and prosecution investigator to get to know 

the witness and vice versa. Such a relationship helps 

build trust and witness confidence and cooperation. 

Creating and Utilizing Victim/WitnessAssistance Programs

A comprehensive victim/witness program is 

indispensable in successfully prosecuting gangrelated crime. In Orange County, California, the 

district attorney’s office works closely with the Gang 

Victim Services program. In the program, trained gang 

victim/witness specialists provide crisis intervention, 

emergency assistance (food, clothing, shelter, and 

medical care), orientation to the system (explaining 

the court process and accompanying victims and 

witnesses to court, helping victims retrieve property 

that was taken or recovered in an investigation, and 

providing restitution assistance, bilingual assistance, 

and community mobilization against crime), outreach, 

and community workshops against gang violence.23

Program participation requires that the victim or witness 

cooperate with the prosecution or lose the program 

benefits. Victims and witnesses can obtain financial 

reimbursement up to $46,000 for medical expenses, loss 

of wages or support, funeral expenses, professional 

counseling, and job retraining or rehabilitation.

Discovery Issues

Witnesses’ names, addresses, and other identifying 

information should be redacted by the prosecution 

before police reports, transcripts, tape recordings, or 

other discovery items are turned over to the defense. 

Many states have laws prohibiting a defense attorney 

from giving witness information to anyone other than a 

defense investigator.24 It is good practice to get a court 

order prohibiting the defense attorney from disclosing 

witness-identification information. Delaying disclosure 

of witnesses’ identities until just before trial, when 

possible, is another helpful safety tactic. Sometimes 

delayed disclosure requires a showing of good cause 

in an in camera hearing with the court.25 Prosecutors 

should always advise the defense of delays in disclosure 

to alert the defense to the issue, should the defense wish 

to challenge the delay.

Preventing Courtroom Intimidation

Courtroom safeguards designed to ensure witness 

security require the involvement of judges, bailiffs, 

investigating officers, prosecution investigators, 

and prosecutors. Courtroom intimidation cannot be 

tolerated and normally is not, especially if the presiding 

judges recognize the intimidation tactics while they are 

occurring. Educating judges and court personnel is a 

necessary step in minimizing courtroom gang-related 

witness intimidation.

Some typical preventative measures to minimize 

courtroom intimidation include identifying and 

photographing all persons entering the courtroom 

and checking for wants and warrants; using walkthrough metal detectors or wands on the spectators 

as they enter the courtroom; having a school official 

present to identify possible truants; alerting probation 

or parole officers to the presence of a probationer or 

parolee; and designating the defendant’s fellow gang 

members as possible witnesses (relevant to the issue 

of the defendant’s gang membership), who can then be 

excluded on the basis of a witness-exclusion order.

An excellent long-term solution to gang members’ 

packing of courtrooms is to include a probation 

condition in all negotiated dispositions that prohibits 

gang-member probationers from attending court 

proceedings unless they are participants in an action or 

are subpoenaed by one of the parties. It is not atypical 

for a significant number of a gang’s members to be 

on probation for juvenile, misdemeanor, or low-grade 

felony offenses (e.g., joyriding). A “no association 

with fellow gang members” condition of probation 

is another excellent way of keeping gang members 

away from court. Secure victim/witness waiting areas 

prevent most hallway contact between witnesses and 

gang members. It is also helpful to bring witnesses 

into court through back hallways, if warranted by the 

circumstances. 

Judges have wide latitude in maintaining courtroom 

security. It is not unusual for a judge to warn audience 

members that no acts of intimidation will be tolerated 

and to have gang members who disregard the warning 

removed from the courtroom. Recently in Massachusetts, 

judges began barring the wearing of garments that bear 

the phrase “Stop Snitching,” which has been associated 

with gang-related witness intimidation. Judges also 

imposed strict limitations on the use of mobile-phone 

cameras in courthouses after spectators in several gang 

cases pointed the phones at witnesses, jurors, or law 

enforcement officials.26 A court may temporarily close a 

courtroom or limit access to the public in extraordinary 

circumstances of severe witness intimidation. A judge 

should make a detailed record of the intimidation before 

closing a courtroom. 


Another good tool for preventing courtroom witness 

intimidation is minimizing the number of courtroom 

appearances required of the witness. Felonies usually 

can proceed by way of grand-jury indictment instead 

of by complaint and preliminary hearing. Grand-jury 

proceedings are secret, closed hearings. There is typically 

no requirement of informing a suspect or defendant that 

an indictment is being sought. The indictment procedure 

expedites cases to trial by avoiding the usual defense 

delays preceding preliminary hearings.

The downside of proceeding by indictment is that 

in many states, hearsay testimony is not allowed to 

support an indictment. Moreover, the prosecution 

must present witnesses before the grand jury. Because 

the testimony is not cross-examined by the defense, 

usually it cannot be used at trial if the witness becomes 

unavailable. Sometimes it is possible to redact the 

transcript to remove witnesses’ names and identifying 

information with a court order before the transcripts of 

the proceeding are discovered to the defense. 

Grand-jury transcripts are not always without value, 

particularly if a witness dies before trial or refuses to 

testify. In California, for example, under Evidence Code, 

Section 1231, a sworn statement (which includes grandjury testimony) is admissible in a subsequent trial if the 

statement relates to a crime committed by the defendant 

in association with, for the benefit of, or at the direction 

of a criminal street gang and the witness dies before trial 

from “other than natural causes.” In Massachusetts, 

a July 1, 2005, decision of the state Supreme Judicial 

Court “allows prosecutors to introduce earlier sworn 

statements of a witness who has either disappeared 

or refused to testify at trial if they can show that the 

defendant himself played a significant role in coercing 

or intimidating the witness.”27

Another way to keep witnesses out of court to avoid 

possible intimidation during initial court hearings is to 

present hearsay testimony at the preliminary hearing. 

Many jurisdictions allow for “hearsay prelims.” The 

presence of the witness is not needed and, usually, 

cannot be forced by the defense, absent a goodfaith showing of the need to call the witness at the 

preliminary hearing. Qualified law enforcement officers 

are allowed to recite a witness’s statement made during 

the investigation. A significant downside to hearsay 

preliminary hearings is lack of prior sworn testimony 

subjected to cross-examination by the defense, which 

would have been admissible at trial should the witness 

have disappeared before trial. 

Most states also allow for the conditional examination 

of a witness who may be unavailable for trial because 

of illness or departure from the state or whose life is in 

jeopardy. A showing that the witness falls into one of 

the three categories must be made for a judge to order 

a conditional examination. The examination itself is 

usually conducted in a courtroom with all parties and 

the defendant present. The questioning proceeds as if 

the witness were testifying at a trial. At the onset of 

trial, if the witness is unavailable for one of the three 

qualifying reasons, the transcript of the conditional 

examination can be used as evidence. Although rarely 

used, conditional examinations represent a potentially 

useful tool under the right circumstances. 

Custodial Protection

It is not uncommon for witnesses in gang cases to 

include incarcerated fellow or rival gang members to 

the defendant or uncooperative witnesses in custody 

for failing to appear when subpoenaed for the case. 

Intimidation prospects are high in custodial settings. 

Necessary witnesses can be kept in protective custody, 

though they frequently are opposed to it because such 

a classification is a sign to all other inmates that the 

witness is a “snitch.” Sometimes, however, it is the only 

way to guarantee protection to an in-custody witness.

Ways to reduce jailhouse intimidation include always 

keeping the defendant and the witness separate in jail, 

during transportation to and from court, and while in 

holding cells at the courthouse; housing the witness 

in a city jail while the defendant is housed at the 

county jail; keeping communication with the witness 

open regarding possible intimidation, either directly or 

through the witness’s attorney, if represented; using a 

“mail cover” to read the defendant’s mail, watching for 

a solicitation or a discussion of witness intimidation; 

keeping tabs on the witness’s visitors, ensuring that 

the defendant’s fellow gang members, friends, or family 

members are not visiting the witness; and checking with 

jailhouse informants regarding any word of planned 

assaults on witnesses.

Conclusion

As highlighted above, gang-related witness intimidation 

represents one of the greatest challenges to the 

administration of justice. It cannot be tolerated, or it will 

inevitably increase in frequency and level of violence. 

Many strategies and programs exist that reduce 

the periodicity and severity of witness intimidation. 

Thorough knowledge and use of these strategies and 

programs are essential to successful prosecutions of 

gang-related crime.


Endnotes

1 Finn, Peter, and Healey, Kerry Murphy. 1996. “Preventing Gang- and Drug-Related Witness Intimidation.” 

Issues and Practices. November 1996. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of 

Justice. 

2 Law enforcement must deal frankly with victims and witnesses of gang-related crime. Police and prosecutors 

share an ethical obligation and a legal duty to warn and protect a witness when official action creates a 

foreseeable peril that is not readily apparent to the witness. Civil liability may result when law enforcement 

officials minimize the danger of cooperation to a witness, fail to protect a witness in light of an obvious threat 

after promising the witness protection, fail to honor an expressed or implied promise to warn of danger, or 

place an unprotected witness near someone who poses a danger to the witness.

3 Egley, Arlen, Jr., and Ritz, Christina. 2006. “Highlights of the 2004 National Youth Gang Survey.” OJJDP 

Fact Sheet. April 2006. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. 

4 Egley, Arlen, Jr., and Arjunan, Mehala. 2002. “Highlights of the 2000 National Youth Gang Survey.” 

OJJDP Fact Sheet. February 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs. 

5 National Alliance of Gang Investigators Associations. 2005 National Gang Threat Assessment. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance.

6 “Crime Statistics.” LAPDonline. January 2006. City of Los Angeles Police Department. http://www.

lapdonline.org/portal/insidethelapd.php?page=/general_information

Crime statistics/crime_ statistics_main.htm

7 Erlich, Robert L., Jr. 2006. “Governor Erlich Announces Witness Intimidation Initiative.” January 25, 

2005. Maryland Governor Robert L. Erlich, Jr., press release. http://www.governor.maryland.gov/

pressreleases/2005/012505_witness.html

8 Kraul, Chris, Lopez, Robert, and Connell, Rich. 2005. “L.A. Violence Crosses the 

Line.” LATimes.com. May 15, 2005. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gang15may15,0,2106407,fu

ll.story?coll=la-home-headlines

9 “MS-13 Gang Member on ICE Most Wanted List.” 2005. Inside ICE. Volume 2, 

No. 11:2. Washington, DC: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 

10 Polley, James, IV. 2005. National District Attorneys Association. Capital Perspective, July/August 2005. 

11 The following case illustrates direct intimidation tactics in action. In the early 1990s, a gang-related driveby shooting occurred in the city of Garden Grove, California, that resulted in the murder of two victims, 

including a 17-year-old rival gang member and a four-year-old boy. 

Additionally, three teenage girls were shot and seriously wounded. The victims were in three separate cars—each 

full of gang members, their girlfriends or wives, and their children. It was a typical, senseless murder common 

for the time. It also became a textbook example of the various forms of witness intimidation. 

The only witness to come forward was “Ralph,” an older, self-proclaimed former member of the victim gang who 

was living in the perpetrator gang’s neighborhood at the time of the crime. He provided critical statements to 

the police and necessary testimony during the jury trial in the case. Four gang members were charged in the 

drive-by. Ralph was continually subjected to all forms of intimidation before, during, and after the trial.

Prior to trial, relatives were told that Ralph would be killed if he continued to cooperate with the case or testify. 

Gang members frequently drove down his street, staring at him or members of his family. He was twice assaulted 

in the courthouse and a few times outside his house. One time he was stabbed. His wife was also verbally and 

physically accosted on occasion. His new car was firebombed. Each time he testified, several members of the 

defendants’ gang crowded into the courtroom. For years following his cooperation, pieces of cheese were thrown 

onto the lawn in front of his house.

12 National District Attorneys Association. Testimony of Honorable Robert P. McCulloch, Prosecuting Attorney, 

St. Louis County, Missouri, and President, National District Attorneys Association, Before a Hearing of the 

Committee on the Judiciary on Gang Violence and Witness Intimidation. September 17, 2003. 


13 Saltzman, Jonathan. 2006. “Judge Fights Courtroom Intimidation.” The Boston Globe. January 11, 2006. 

14 Opatmy, Dennis, and Blumberg, Peter. 2005. “Federal Prosecutors Tackle Gang Killings.” Los Angeles 

Daily Journal. 2005. September 23, 2005.

15 National District Attorneys Association. Testimony of Honorable Robert P. McCulloch, Prosecuting Attorney, 

St. Louis County, Missouri, and President, National District Attorneys Association, Before a Hearing of the 

Committee on the Judiciary on Gang Violence and Witness Intimidation. September 17, 2003. 

16 Finn, Peter, and Healey, Kerry Murphy. 1996. “Preventing Gang- and Drug-Related Witness Intimidation.” 

Issues and Practices. November 1996. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of 

Justice. 

17 California Witness Protection Program. 2005. “Annual Report to the Legislature 2005.” Sacramento, CA. 

18 See generally, 18 United States Code 3521. 

19 Kentucky Revised Statutes, 421.500(1); State of Connecticut, Division of Criminal Justice, Programs and 

Services, The Witness Protection Unit. April 3, 2006. 

http://www.ct.gov.csa0/cwp/view.asp?a1798&q=285778

20 Lewis, Raphael, and Helman, Scott. 2006. “Mass. House OK’s Witness Protections.” The Boston Globe. 

January 11, 2006. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/01/11/mass_house_

oks_witness_protections/

21 See California Penal Code, Sections 14020–14033.

22 Title 11, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Special Programs, Chapter 96. Protection of Witnesses. April 3, 

2006. http://www.delcode.state.de.us/title11/c096/

23 Mendez, Louis. 2005. Supervisor of Gang Victim Services, a program of community service programs. 

Personal interview. December 14, 2005. 

24 See, for example, California Penal Code, Section 1054.2, which makes willful disclosure of such information 

a misdemeanor.

25 See, for example, California Penal Code, Section 1054.7.

26 Saltzman, Jonathan. 2006. “Judge Fights Courtroom Intimidation.” The Boston Globe. January 11, 2006. 

27 WHDH-TV. 2005. Mass. Prosecutors Can Now Use Grand Jury Testimony When Witnesses Intimidated. 

http://www.whdh.com/news/articles/local/BOS2718/

Additional Reference

Jones, Eddie. Testimony before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Combating Gang 

Violence in America: Examining Effective Federal, State, and Local Law Enforcement Strategies. 

September 17, 2003. 


The National Gang Center (NGC) is a collaborative effort between 

the Office of Justice Programs’ (OJP) Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) 

and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP).

This partnership works to provide professionals in the field of gangs 

with tools that can be used in a comprehensive range of strategies to 

respond to street gangs, from prevention and intervention to criminal 

justice strategies such as suppression, prosecution, and re-entry.

John Anderson, Esquire, is an assistant district attorney with the 

Orange County District Attorney’s Office in California. He joined the 

office in 1985 after attending Hastings College of Law. He currently 

supervises the TARGET unit, which is a specialized unit dedicated to the 

targeting and suppression of gang activities, working closely with gang 

units and local law enforcement agencies throughout Orange County to 

target gang-related crime. Mr. Anderson also writes resource articles 

and provides gang prosecution training for the National Gang Center to 

prosecutors and law enforcement officers around the United States.

This project was supported by Grant No. 2004-LD-BX-1404 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. 

The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the 

author and do not represent the official position or policies of the United States Department of Justice.