U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

57–937 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–578 

FEDERAL EFFORTS TO ADDRESS WITNESS 

INTIMIDATION AT THE STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND DRUGS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JANUARY 8, 2010 

Serial No. J–111–69 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

MATT MINER, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND DRUGS

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

HANNIBAL KEMERER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

WALT KUHN, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 38 

Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania ................. 1 

WITNESSES 

Canada, Ted, Victims; Advocate, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ............................. 13 

Clowden Barbara, Victims; Advocate, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ..................... 10 

Coard, Michael, Law Office of Michael Coard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ....... 17 

Frei, Richard L., Associator Professor, Community College of Pennsylvania, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ................................................................................. 23 

Ramsey, Charles H., Commissioner, Philadelphia Police Department, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania .......................................................................................... 2 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Canada, Ted, Victims; Advocate, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, statement .......... 31 

Clowden Barbara, Victims; Advocate, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, statement .. 32 

Coard, Michael, Law Office of Michael Coard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 34 

Frei, Richard L., Associator Professor, Community College of Pennsylvania, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, statement .............................................................. 40 

Olshan, Marlene L., Chief Executive Officer, Big Brothers Big Sisters, 

Southereastern Pennsylvania, statement .......................................................... 52 

Ramsey, Charles H., Commissioner, Philadelphia Police Department, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, statement ....................................................................... 55 

(1) 

FEDERAL EFFORTS TO ADDRESS WITNESS INTIMIDATION AT THE STATE AND LOCAL 

LEVEL 

FRIDAY, JANUARY 8, 2010 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND DRUGS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:40 a.m., Constitution Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Hon. Arlen Specter 

presiding. 

Present: Charles H. Ramsey, Commissioner, Philadelphia Police 

Department; Barbara Clowden, Victims’ Rights Advocate; Ted Canada, Victims’ Rights Advocate; Michael Coard, Law Office of Michael Coard; Dr. Richard L. Frei, Community College of Pennsylvania; and Erica Hines, Public Participant. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Senator SPECTER. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The 

Criminal Law Subcommittee of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee will now proceed with this hearing. 

This hearing has been recognized following an extensive series of 

articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer, maintaining major problems 

in the criminal justice system setting in Philadelphia. This is a 

subject which I have worked on for decades, going back to my days 

as an Assistant District Attorney in this city, and then as Philadelphia’s District Attorney for 8 years, from 1966 until 1974, and on 

the Judiciary Committee, where I’ve served since my election to the 

Senate in 1980, I’ve been concerned about the problems of violent 

crime nationally, and with special emphasis on the problems in my 

hometown of Philadelphia. 

Our hearing today is going to take up the issue of witness intimidation, the question of how to protect witnesses. Criminal trials 

cannot proceed unless there are witnesses, and if witnesses are 

subject to intimidation or subject to the ultimate elimination, 

through murder, obviously criminal cases cannot go forward. 

Now, this is one problem of a whole series of problems, and we 

will consider having additional hearings depending on circumstances. I regret that we were unable to have this hearing 

when it was first scheduled, but the Senate schedule, as you may 

know, during December was extended because of legislation on 

comprehensive health care reform. Yesterday, I just returned from 

2 

a trip overseas where I visited Afghanistan, and that has required 

the setting of the hearing for today. 

We have a distinguished array of witnesses. We have the distinguished Philadelphia police commissioner, who came to this position after 29 years of service on the Chicago Police Department, including being commissioner, and then commissioner in Washington, DC, and brought out of retirement to serve in Philadelphia. 

We have two witnesses, Ms. Barbara Clowden and Mr. Ted Canada, who have lost children as a result of murders because they 

were prospective witnesses. We have a distinguished Philadelphia 

practicing attorney, Michael Coard, who has a little different perspective, who’s had some comments of a critical nature—entitled to 

those views—on the Inquirer series. 

And we have Professor Richard Frei from the Philadelphia Community College, who has done some scientific research on the issue 

of the culture of snitching or ratting. Times have changed significantly since I was District Attorney here, lots of problems. But to 

have an entire culture is different, and we’re going to be looking 

at this issue from quite a number of perspectives. 

I want to especially thank the police commissioner for coming. 

We’ve had a change of schedule a couple of times, but he knows 

what schedule changes are like; he has to change his all the time 

depending on what happens in his very, very complicated job. 

Well, thank you for joining us, Commissioner Ramsey. The floor 

is yours. 

STATEMENT OF POLICE COMMISSIONER CHARLES H. RAMSEY, 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA POLICE DEPARTMENT 

Commissioner RAMSEY. Thank you, and good morning, Chairman 

Specter, invited speakers, and guests. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and discuss how the Federal Government can assist local and State law enforcement agencies in 

preventing, and responding to, witness intimidation. 

As police commissioner for the city of Philadelphia and the 

former chief of police for the Metropolitan Police Department in the 

District of Columbia for nearly 9 years, I can’t overstate the importance of collaboration between the Federal Government and local 

law enforcement. 

What the recent Philadelphia Inquirer series on the criminal justice system in our city so clearly demonstrated is that our system 

is, indeed, dysfunctional. Together, we work to fight crime and 

make our communities safer. Separately, we often have competing 

goals and metrics of success, operating different procedures and responding to different political pressures. There is no simple solution to fixing a system-wide problem. 

The Inquirer pointed out that the conviction rate for felony crime 

in Philadelphia is the lowest in the Nation. Raising the conviction 

rate should not be viewed, however, as the cure-all for a broken 

system, nor should any statistic be interpreted as an indicator of 

its success or failure. Reducing systemic dysfunction and placing 

blame squarely with any single agency does a disservice to us all. 

In a New York Times editorial entitled ‘‘Criminal Justice Cube,’’ 

published on December 9, 1981, the board wrote the following: ‘‘It’s 

long been understood that criminal justice is a Rubik’s Cube. What 

3 

the police do will affect what happens in court, which will affect 

what happens in the jails and prisons. You can’t hope to deal with 

crime better by focusing on any single part any more than you can 

solve the Cube by concentrating on one square at a time.’’ 

This editorial was published nearly 30 years ago in response to 

the dysfunction that marked the criminal justice system in New 

York City and its surrounding boroughs. Its message, however, resonates loud and clear today. Substitute Philadelphia for New 

York—or any large city, for that matter—and the conversation is 

just as relevant as it was in 1981. 

Now in 2010, we continue to be overwhelmed and underresourced in terms of how best to approach the deep fissures in our 

criminal justice system. It is time to change the conversation. The 

topic of this hearing, witness intimidation—and I would add to that 

witness non-cooperation—undermines the integrity and reliability 

of our criminal justice system. 

From a financial perspective, the Federal Government can play 

a meaningful role in guarding victims’ rights in proposed House 

Resolution 1741, the Witness Security and Protection Grant Program Act of 2009. The bill would make competitive grants available 

to State and local law enforcement jurisdictions to establish and 

maintain certain protection and assistance programs. 

As the Inquirer series noted, financial assistance for these programs has been dwindling since 2007. This is an excellent opportunity for the Federal Government to aid State and local law enforcement agencies in combatting the culture of violence around 

witness intimidation. This is a necessary bill whose value cannot 

be measured in budgetary terms, and I urge the Committee and 

the full Senate to enact this bill into law. 

Another tangible financial step that the Federal Government can 

take is investing in law enforcement technology that maximizes 

data sharing and integration between agencies. ‘‘Today’s complainant is often tomorrow’s defendant,’’ as one of our detectives recently 

said regarding why he believed witness non-cooperation with police 

is so pervasive. 

The same people committing crimes are frequently the victims of 

crime themselves. Three out of every four shooting victims in 2008, 

for example, here in Philadelphia had a previous arrest record. Of 

those with an arrest record, 1 out of 5 had at least 10 or more prior 

arrests. 

All of our investigators should have access to a database which 

traces a defendant, his entire criminal history, his associates, the 

victims involved, the dispositions of his hearings, and his status in 

the correctional system in one clearinghouse of information. The 

way in which we deploy technology throughout the various criminal 

justice agencies is a mirror of the criminal justice system itself: 

fragmented, decentralized, and lacking coherence of purpose. The 

overall efficiency with which all agencies perform their jobs will go 

a long way toward helping police and prosecutors fight witness intimidation and non-cooperation. 

On a much broader level, I would also suggest the Federal Government consider the option of establishing a national major crime 

commission. In the past, the Federal Government has empaneled 

4 

crime commissions to accomplish this goal of viewing the entire 

criminal justice system from a single framework of relevance. 

A national crime commission in 2010 could provide an invaluable 

compendium of best practices and strategies for improvement 

across the board. The difficulty with addressing system deficiencies 

in a piecemeal manner is that a small change in one part of the 

system may result in unintended consequences in another area and 

we can’t continue to operate that way. 

Here in this city, the Philadelphia Police Department will continue to work hard, and I believe make great strides, at connecting 

with many of our diverse communities in reducing crime. In doing 

so, we will play an important role in combatting witness intimidation and non-cooperation. We can’t do it alone, however, changing 

the system will require a systems approach and it is here that the 

Federal Government can play an important role in supporting 

State and local law enforcement agencies. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Commissioner Ramsey appears as a 

submission for the record.] 

Senator SPECTER. Well, thank you very much, Commissioner. 

Beginning with the issue of the underlying cause of crime, you’ve 

been at this line of work for a long time. When did you start at 

the Chicago Police Department? 

Commissioner RAMSEY. December, 1968. 

Senator SPECTER. What are your views as to the seriousness of 

the crime problem now, 42 years later? 

Commissioner RAMSEY. Well, for my experience in the 1960s and 

early 1970s, we had a very serious problem, primarily because of 

gangs, very large and sophisticated gangs. I’m referring to Chicago, 

because that’s where I’m from and that’s where my experience was 

in dealing with crime at that particular point in time. We did see 

a lull, if you will, in gang activity in the 1980s, and then a resurgence in the 1990s with crack cocaine and so forth when it came 

to the forefront. 

Senator SPECTER. Have we made any improvements in the intensity of the big-city crime problem? 

Commissioner RAMSEY. Well, I think we have. I think we’ve 

made significant progress. I think that police departments, working 

with communities, have gotten a lot more sophisticated in being 

able to target crime specifically through analysis of data, deploying 

our resources in a more effective manner, and the like, building 

stronger bridges to the community. A lot of work still needs to be 

done in that area, there’s absolutely no question about that. 

Senator SPECTER. How about on the issue of the underlying 

causes of crime, the issues of education, poverty, housing, job training? 

Commissioner RAMSEY. I don’t think we’ve made nearly enough 

progress. I think our educational system—— 

Senator SPECTER. Not nearly enough, or any, or much? 

Commissioner RAMSEY. Well, I don’t think much. I’d hate to say 

we’ve not made any. I’m not an expert in education, for example, 

but certainly many of our children are graduating from elementary 

schools, high schools, and in some cases even colleges, and still are 

not prepared to deal with the kinds of jobs that are available in the 

5 

21st century. They don’t have the kind of skills to compete for the 

jobs that are available oftentimes. 

Too many drop out, especially in our public schools in inner cities. We have too high a rate of drop-outs. We have dysfunctional 

families, and now we have generations of dysfunction within families. So we’ve got a lot of social problems that need to be addressed, 

because crime is the end result of a lot of these things. 

We can’t solve it by adding more cops, adding more prisons, adding more of those kinds of things without taking a look at the front 

end of what’s driving it to begin with and taking aggressive steps 

to correcting that, so that from the beginning all the way to the 

end we’ve taken a comprehensive view of crime and what’s driving 

crime in order to have a real lasting impact. 

Senator SPECTER. When you call for a national commission, Senator Webb and I have introduced the Webb-Specter bill calling for 

such a commission. I believe that, before this year is up, we will 

have legislation accomplishing that. 

Commissioner RAMSEY. Good. 

Senator SPECTER. And when you are looking for grants, I’m cosponsoring the legislation to provide the grants. That is more problematic because of the shortage of funding, but where would you 

like to see those grants directed? 

Commissioner RAMSEY. Well, I mean, in the area of technology, 

I think, is really essential. We all have information systems, most 

of which are outdated, but many aren’t really able to communicate 

effectively so we can share information. Witness protection programs, for example, which is why we’re here today. Certainly 

there’s been some funding cut. We’ve averaged about $1 million a 

year; last year I think it was like $800,000 available. 

Senator SPECTER. How far? How far does that go? 

Commissioner RAMSEY. Well, it doesn’t go far enough. I mean, 

it’s going to come to a point. The DA’s office administers that, but 

in speaking with people from that office, the fear is that a time will 

come when some people may have to, in fact, be turned away simply because there’s a shortage of funding. We should be in a position where anyone who has information to help us in a criminal 

matter, we ought to be able to provide that support, should it be 

needed. 

Senator SPECTER. We’re going to take a look, before we’re finished on these hearings, at the Federal Witness/Victim Protection 

program. That’s a pretty good program, but it’s a very expensive 

program. When there have been criticisms directed at the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office on the conviction rate, it ought to be 

noted that it’s not the prosecutor’s fault when there is not a conviction when there’s not a witness, when the witness has been intimidated or killed. That has happened, regrettably, too often. We’re 

going to hear some specifics from two parents, who will tell specifics illustrative of this kind of a problem. 

Another course is to have Federal legislation which would make 

it a Federal crime to intimidate a State court witness. Right now, 

our legal research shows we do not have such an offense. That 

would bring the FBI into the case. As an experienced police officer, 

what impact do you think that would have if these hoodlums who 

intimidate or murder knew that it was a Federal matter and that 

6 

the FBI would be in the case? Would that make a difference in 

their approach to witness intimidation? 

Commissioner RAMSEY. I think it would make a tremendous difference. We find, even in cases outside of just witness intimidation, 

whenever we’re able to bring it to a Federal court, it does have a 

different impact on individuals. They really are fearful of going into 

Federal court, in many instances. I think the fact that it would be 

a Federal offense, and hopefully with a very, very harsh penalty if 

convicted, I think that would make a tremendous difference and 

make people think twice before they did it. 

Senator SPECTER. Would you support a mandatory sentence on 

witness intimidation? 

Commissioner RAMSEY. I would. Hopefully it would be a sufficient penalty. I think that there needs to be a real strong message 

sent that it’s just not OK to do that. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, I have been pressing for mandatory sentences on Medicare and Medicaid fraud. It’s estimated that we lose 

about $45 billion a year on Medicare fraud, when we’re searching 

for dollars to provide health coverage to 47 million more Americans. But there is a reluctance today to impose mandatory sentences, going back to the mandatory sentences on crack cocaine, 

which have been out of line, leading to discretion. But I’m interested in your view as a law enforcement officer, a police officer, of 

the value of mandatory sentences. 

Commissioner RAMSEY. Well, I think you have to be very careful 

with mandatory sentences, personally. But I think something as serious as witness intimidation, and in many cases leading to murder, I think that’s an exception. I think the fact that someone 

would actually intimidate or kill an individual to keep them from 

testifying against them in court, I can’t think of many things that 

are more serious than that. 

I think if ever there were a crime where consideration ought to 

be given to a mandatory sentence, that falls into that category. I 

think we do have to be careful. I think that we did go overboard 

with mandatory sentencing in some regards years ago, but there is 

a place for it, and I think witness intimidation is one of those 

areas. 

Senator SPECTER. You commented that you think a defendant 

brought into Federal court takes it more seriously. Why do you 

think that is? 

Commissioner RAMSEY. I don’t know why, other than the fact 

that, you know, because the system doesn’t move as—it doesn’t 

have the same volume that the State system has, that the sentences that are imposed in many instances, whether it’s a gun offense or what have you, tends to be longer. 

I just think the whole environment or atmosphere when you go 

into a Federal court versus a local court is just somewhat different, 

and they haven’t been exposed to it that often. I just think it has 

an impact in the feedback I’ve gotten from people on both sides, 

whether it’s another law enforcement agency or from a person 

who’s been in the criminal justice system. They do not want to go 

into Federal court. 

7 

Senator SPECTER. Do you think it has anything to do with the 

quality of the Federal court judges contrasted with the quality of 

the State court judges? 

Commissioner RAMSEY. I don’t know. I think we’ve got good 

judges at the State level, we’ve got good judges at the Federal level, 

and we’ve got some that aren’t so good at both levels, having 

worked in Washington, DC, which is largely a hybrid of a Federal 

system. I’ve seen some judges that left a little to be desired on the 

Federal side as well. So, it’s up to the individual judge. I think, by 

and large, most of them are fair and most of them do a very good 

job. But there are some that, quite frankly, leave something to be 

desired. 

Senator SPECTER. Do you think there’s any inherent superiority 

in the appointing process with judicial commissions and appointments as opposed to the electoral process? 

Commissioner RAMSEY. Well, the problem I have with the—— 

Senator SPECTER. And do you think we ought to elect police commissioners? 

[Laughter.] 

Commissioner RAMSEY. Well, I mean, you do have sheriffs that 

get elected. I mean, there’s pros and cons to both. The biggest problem I have with elected judges, and even being in law enforcement, 

when I walk into that voting booth, 80 percent of the names on 

that ballot, I don’t know who they are, I know nothing about their 

record. It’ll be Democrat or Republican, and I don’t know what that 

has to do with their effectiveness as a judge, what political party 

they happen to be in. I’d rather see, what’s their conviction rate? 

What court do they sit in, what’s their conviction rate, what’s their 

track record? Then I can make a judgment. 

I don’t see any of that, so to me it’s almost a joke, going in, voting for judges, because you have no personal knowledge. You look 

at an editorial section and they may print what they think is a 

good judge versus a bad judge, and you have no idea of how they 

even arrived at that conclusion. So I think an appointment system 

might be better for the average person going to vote. But no system 

is perfect. 

Senator SPECTER. We use the expression from time to time 

‘‘tougher judges.’’ It’s hard to quantify what makes a tougher judge, 

but you have the judicial discretion pick up on continuances. Do 

you think that there’s a difference? And I realize you haven’t gotten a whole lot of experience of going into a Federal court, even as 

a State court. But do you have any sense of the difficulty of getting 

a continuance in a Federal court contrasted with a State court? 

Commissioner RAMSEY. I know the continuances at the State 

level happen far more frequently than, in many cases, they should. 

A lot of witnesses get tired, they have jobs, they’ve got to take off 

work in order to get to court, and that just goes on, and on, and 

on. I think there needs to be a limit. 

But again, this whole notion of ‘‘tough judges,’’ judges should be 

fair, should be impartial. But I do think that people with long 

criminal histories, that are constantly coming before the courts, 

constantly committing crimes, you know, something has to be done 

about it. 

8 

We have people that have 10, 20, 30, 40 different prior arrests. 

At some point in time you have to recognize that that individual 

just needs to be taken off the streets. There have to be consequences and the consequences have to be significant in order for 

people to get the message. You just cannot shoot people, rob people, 

and do things of that nature and cause harm to others without 

having an expectation that there will be some consequences if 

you’re convicted. 

Senator SPECTER. To what extent—if you know, Commissioner 

Ramsey—do witnesses come to you and complain that they’re being 

threatened, intimidated by defendants in criminal cases where 

they’re scheduled to testify? 

Commissioner RAMSEY. I think that it’s not even—you know, I 

get feedback from our detectives, and that’s basically where it 

comes from. Sometimes it’s not even the overt act, it’s just the fear. 

People have to live in the neighborhood, they have children that 

they fear for. It’s not so much sometimes the individual themselves, 

it’s their family. It’s just a way in which they’re viewed within a 

community, whether that’s real, perceived, or what have you. 

But there is a legitimate intimidation factor that’s out there, 

there’s no question about that. We’ve got to find a way to do something to make people feel safe and secure if they do step forward 

and provide information, because the only way we’re going to deal 

with crime in communities is when the community steps forward, 

but they have to feel comfortable in doing so and know they have 

support. 

Senator SPECTER. And when you say within the community, is 

there some stigma of disapprobation for people who testify? 

Commissioner RAMSEY. There’s no question, and that’s not just 

recent. I mean, that’s been for a period of time. I mean—— 

Senator SPECTER. Why is that? 

Commissioner RAMSEY. Well, I don’t know specifically. I just 

know that even—you know, you watch an old movie made in the 

1930s and they’ll refer to an informant as a rat, you know. I mean, 

we use derogatory terms toward people who provide information, 

who cooperate with authorities. 

I think that that’s something that has to stop because it creates 

a mind-set that it’s wrong, so it puts you in a situation where you 

need cooperation, yet there’s pressure not to provide any kind of information or cooperate with authorities at all, and it just goes on 

and on and on and things never get better. 

Criminals take advantage of that. They take full advantage of it, 

there’s no question about it. And if they do get caught or charged 

with intimidation and get convicted, I mean, what happens to 

them? I mean, it has to be something that is very, very severe, in 

my opinion, so that the message is there that you just can’t do 

that. 

Senator SPECTER. When some prospective witness comes to complain to the police department about intimidation or threats, do 

you have the manpower to begin to cope with witness protection? 

Commissioner RAMSEY. Our District Attorney’s Office does a very 

good job. I mean, the DA actually runs the witness protection program. They do a very good job. People who are in the program and 

who comply with the rules, we don’t have an issue. It’s when people 

9 

decide, you know, to go back to a neighborhood or don’t comply. 

And it’s hard not to. I mean, you’ve got family, you’ve got school, 

you’ve got all kind of issues that cause people to do it, and I’m certainly not blaming them. But it’s just a complicated situation to be 

in. 

But the DA’s office, I think, does a very, very good job when it 

comes to providing the protection for people who are in the program. But again, without funding, then they have to really establish some kind of priority as to who would be eligible for the program, who wouldn’t be, how long can we keep them in the program, all those kinds of things, and that’s where you start running 

into problems and issues. 

Senator SPECTER. To what extent does the District Attorney’s Office have resources to provide protection? 

Commissioner RAMSEY. Well, they’d be in a better position to say 

that. I know they’ve had some cuts. I think the last couple of years, 

they’ve had about $1 million to work with. It was cut last year; 

$880,000, I believe is what was available. Possibility of future cuts. 

The funding comes through the State Attorney General’s Office. 

But again, as more cases go before the courts, as more people feel 

comfortable in testifying, then you’re going to have a greater demand for people who are going to need some kind of protection and 

you’re going to have to have some funding in place for the DA’s office to be able to provide that. That’s where we’ll run into some 

issues. We solved one problem, but we can create another one for 

ourselves if we don’t have the resources in place. 

Senator SPECTER. Commissioner Ramsey, thank you for coming 

in today to testify. 

Commissioner RAMSEY. Thank you, sir. 

Senator SPECTER. I thank you for being our police commissioner. 

Commissioner RAMSEY. Thank you. Appreciate it. 

Senator SPECTER. We know you have other duties to attend to, 

so we would understand if you wish to move on to take care of 

those duties. 

Commissioner RAMSEY. Well, thank you. I do have a couple. 

Thank you. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much. 

We turn now to our panel of civilian witnesses. We’re going to 

begin with two parents whom we have here who lost children as 

a result of murders of prospective witnesses. I want to turn, first 

of all, to Mrs. Barbara Clowden, the mother of Eric Hayes, who 

was murdered in November of 2006, just 2 days before he was to 

testify in an arson trial. 

Because Eric Hayes’ life had been threatened in January of 2006, 

Mrs. Clowden signed a contract with the city, agreeing to place 

Eric and the family in the city’s witness relocation program. Funds 

for relocation were insufficient to support the family to the time of 

the trial. Mrs. Clowden now says that entering the program was 

‘‘the worst thing I ever did in my life.’’ She is suing the city for failing to protect her family and says her son’s death was the result 

of a ‘‘State-created danger.’’ She now says that she wishes her son 

had never agreed to testify, understandably so. 

10 

Thank you for coming in to testify today, Mrs. Clowden, and to 

tell us what your experiences have been. Push the microphone very 

close to you and speak into it. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF BARBARA CLOWDEN, VICTIMS’ ADVOCATE, 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 

Ms. CLOWDEN. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to 

be here today. I lost my son Eric on November 22, 2006. Eric and 

my family entered the Witness Relocation Program as a result of 

Eric testifying in a trial—scheduled to testify in a trial of a young 

man that tried to burn down our house because they wanted Eric 

to sell drugs for the local guy there. And the boy came around to 

set fire to our house on November 13, 2005, and Eric looked out 

the door—— 

Senator SPECTER. Why did the boy want to burn down your 

house? 

Ms. CLOWDEN. Because earlier, like a couple weeks before, they 

came around to fight Eric and he was fighting them. And I guess 

they felt he—he could be a threat to them, because he wouldn’t sell 

drugs for them. 

Senator SPECTER. Did the boy who tried to burn down the house 

want Eric to participate with him in selling drugs? 

Ms. CLOWDEN. Yeah. It was him and another guy. 

Senator SPECTER. And did your son Eric refuse to participate in 

drug sales? 

Ms. CLOWDEN. Yes. 

Senator SPECTER. And was that the reason he tried to burn down 

the house? 

Ms. CLOWDEN. Yes. 

Senator SPECTER. Uh-huh. And what did he do specifically with 

respect to trying to burn down the house? 

Ms. CLOWDEN. He—he was saturating the door with gasoline. He 

was pouring a lot of gasoline on the door. At the time that Eric 

looked down and seen him, he was getting ready to light the 

match. 

Senator SPECTER. And he wanted to burn the house down? 

Ms. CLOWDEN. Yes. 

Senator SPECTER. Uh-huh. That’s a little hard to comprehend, 

Mrs. Clowden. I don’t doubt that you are laying out the facts, but 

isn’t that extreme, to commit an arson, take people’s lives, over the 

disagreement with that man—I won’t call him a boy, that man— 

had with your son? 

Ms. CLOWDEN. I would say it was a bit extreme, but that’s what 

happened. 

Senator SPECTER. I’m asking you the question to try to understand what happens there. Can you give any insight into why 

somebody would do something so drastic under those circumstances? 

Ms. CLOWDEN. No. I guess it’s just, when people want things 

done the way they wanted to do it and you don’t—they—people 

don’t do what they want them to do, everybody do things in a different way. 

Senator SPECTER. No regard for human life. 

Ms. CLOWDEN. Well, he didn’t have none. 

11 

Senator SPECTER. Or suffering. To be burned to death is a pretty 

horrible fate. But that’s what he was doing, lighting—pouring gasoline to light the house on fire. 

Ms. CLOWDEN. Yes. That’s what he was doing. 

Senator SPECTER. Then what happened with respect to the Witness Protection Program? 

Ms. CLOWDEN. Well, we entered into the Witness Protection Program and they put us in a hotel. 

Senator SPECTER. Mrs. Clowden, I can hear you, but they can’t 

hear you all the way in the back. 

Ms. CLOWDEN. OK. We entered into the Witness Protection Program. 

Senator SPECTER. Your picture is going to be on television, but 

your voice won’t be, so speak up. 

Ms. CLOWDEN. They put us in a hotel and they said that we were 

going to have to look for another place to live, and they said they 

were going to assist us in that. So we went to one hotel and we 

stayed there. 

Senator SPECTER. You went to the DA’s office and they made arrangements for you to go to a hotel? 

Ms. CLOWDEN. Yes. The District Attorney’s Office. 

Senator SPECTER. And what happened next? 

Ms. CLOWDEN. And we went to the hotel and we lived in the 

hotel for a lot of months. 

Senator SPECTER. For how long? 

Ms. CLOWDEN. From January the 13th to the end of October 

1906. 

Senator SPECTER. Do you have any idea why it took so long for 

the trial to come up? 

Ms. CLOWDEN. No. I don’t know why it took so long for the trial. 

Senator SPECTER. And then what happened? 

Ms. CLOWDEN. While we were in the hotel, looking for a place to 

stay—it’s kind of hard to look for a place to stay. We had to move 

all of our things. We went to the hotel and we were looking for a 

place to stay, but a lot of problems came from having to do that, 

look for—— 

Senator SPECTER. What happened? Who came? 

Ms. CLOWDEN. A lot of problems. We had a lot of problems finding another place to stay. 

Senator SPECTER. Why did you have to find another place to 

stay? 

Ms. CLOWDEN. Because Eric was being threatened after the guy 

got arrested and we had to go to—— 

Senator SPECTER. Did the guy know where Eric was in the hotel? 

Ms. CLOWDEN. Before we went to the hotel. 

Senator SPECTER. Huh? 

Ms. CLOWDEN. Before we went to the hotel, we was at our house 

and that’s why we left our house. 

Senator SPECTER. Right. 

Ms. CLOWDEN. Because they kept coming near to fight him and 

telling him, don’t go to court. And they told me that if he kept 

going to court, I was going to have a dead son. 

Senator SPECTER. Then what happened? 

12 

Ms. CLOWDEN. So when we went to the preliminary hearing, I 

told the District Attorney what had happened and they suggested 

that we leave—leave the house. 

Senator SPECTER. And then you left the house and went to the 

hotel? 

Ms. CLOWDEN. Yes. 

Senator SPECTER. What happened next? 

Ms. CLOWDEN. We—we lived in the hotel. Like I said, we was in 

the hotel and I was trying to find another place to live, since I 

couldn’t go back to my house. 

Senator SPECTER. And did you find another place to live? 

Ms. CLOWDEN. No. I couldn’t find a place to live because I still 

had the responsibility of my house, and my income was limited. 

The city didn’t have no—no resources to help you if you came into 

that situation. 

Senator SPECTER. So what did you do? Did you go back to your 

house? 

Ms. CLOWDEN. No. They—they put us in another hotel and they 

said that they would help me—give me a subsidy program called 

Transitional Housing, and with that program you have to stay in 

Philadelphia. And I kept saying, well, I think we need to leave 

Philadelphia, because if we don’t they’re going to kill my son. And 

they was like, the city of Philadelphia, OESS, was like, well, we’ll 

just give you transitional housing and you just move to another 

part of Philadelphia, and that’s what we did. And 2 weeks after we 

moved into the house that they helped us get, he got shot. That’s 

when they shot Eric. 

Senator SPECTER. The man found your son and shot him? 

Ms. CLOWDEN. Yes. We were two—yeah. Two weeks after we 

moved into the house. 

Senator SPECTER. Uh-huh. What were the circumstances, if you 

know, as to how he found your son and how he shot him? 

Ms. CLOWDEN. I’m not sure how they found out where we were 

at. 

Senator SPECTER. And what happened to the shooter? 

Ms. CLOWDEN. The police department said they didn’t have 

enough evidence to arrest anyone. They did arrest someone, but 

then they said he confessed to the murder, but then they came 

back and said that he didn’t do it because he was in a lock-up facility in another part of the city on that day, and so it wasn’t him. 

Senator SPECTER. So has anybody been prosecuted for the murder of your son Eric? 

Ms. CLOWDEN. No. They said they don’t have—they don’t have 

enough evidence to really get a conviction. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, thank you for providing that testimony, 

Mrs. Clowden. 

Ms. CLOWDEN. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Clowden appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator SPECTER. We turn now to Mr. Ted Canada, Philadelphia 

resident, SEPTA bus driver, single parent. In 2005, his son, Lamar 

Canada, was shot 12 times and killed by Dominick Peoples and another unidentified shooter in Philadelphia over a gambling debt. 

One witness to the shooting, Johnta Gravitt, 17 years old, was 

13 

murdered 10 days after he testified at the preliminary hearing and 

identified Peoples as one of the shooters. Another witness, Martin 

Thomas, initially cooperated, but after his statement to the police 

was publicly posted, the neighborhood identified him as a snitch 

and he recanted. Peoples was convicted. 

Mr. Canada is active in the anti-violence group, Men United for 

a Better Philadelphia. 

Mr. Canada, thank you for coming in. Pull the microphone close 

and tell us what happened to your son here. 

STATEMENT OF TED CANADA, VICTIMS’ ADVOCATE, 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. CANADA. Good morning, everyone. Thanks a lot for having 

me. 

In 2005, my son, he was drastically murdered. It was very senseless violence that we see that’s taking place in the city, not only 

in the city of Philadelphia, but all over the world. The part that 

got to me mostly was losing a son at such a young age, and after 

that, losing another young man that was trying to do the right 

thing. This young man, Johnta Gravitt, to me and my family, was 

basically a hero because we were able to get some closure in our 

son’s murder. Unfortunately, Ms. Barbara Clowden was not. That 

was—came from Johnta and other people stepping up to testify. 

However, I don’t feel as though Johnta got a good deal out of it 

because he was murdered 10 days later, and the police obviously 

said it had no connection to him testifying at my son’s hearing. 

However, our family felt different. 

When he came to the hearing to testify, he basically was on his 

own. When we left the hearing, ironically, the police did not even 

escort Mr. Gravitt home. He was actually headed for a bus stop 

when my uncle and myself and our family members noticed that 

he was getting ready to catch the bus and we offered him a ride 

home. And in the statement, if you read the statement and article 

in the Inquirer, one of the officers stated that it was safer for 

Johnta to catch the bus than it would be for two white officers to 

take him home in his neighborhood. 

So I just came up with a few common-sense examples of things 

that you can do, because generally what happens is, everybody 

tries to turn everything over to a budget and they start thinking, 

well, it’s the budget, we don’t have money to do this, we don’t have 

money to do that. That’s what it usually boils down to every time 

you want to make changes or every time you want to do something 

different. 

A lot of times it just takes common sense, such as—you know, 

my suggestion was, you know, you can come up with the answer 

of two white officers. Why wouldn’t you just allow two black officers, or just officers in general that can fit the job that needs to 

be done? I mean, you have different—I’ve been down to the courthouses and I’ve seen officers who look as young as 18 years of age 

and younger. I mean, why not utilize the correct people to do the 

correct job? I mean, it doesn’t take money. I mean, and also, we 

need to stop making it so easy for these witnesses’ information—— 

14 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Canada, I’m not following you on the distinction you made between the two black officers and the two white 

officers. Could you amplify what you mean? 

Mr. CANADA. Sure. What I mean is, if you’re going to have—if 

you’re dealing in a black neighborhood, yes—what the officer was 

trying to say, that if two white officers bring a black youth home, 

it’s going to stand out like a sore thumb. So what I’m saying is, 

why not use two black officers so it doesn’t make it so obvious? 

Senator SPECTER. I see. 

Mr. CANADA. Black, young, youth officers that can probably assist these gentlemen. 

Senator SPECTER. So it doesn’t stand out that the young man 

may be cooperating with the police. 

Mr. CANADA. Right. That is correct. 

Senator SPECTER. OK. I’ve got you now. 

Mr. CANADA. That is correct. And also, stop making it so easy. 

How was it that that gentleman’s testimony posted up in a Chinese 

restaurant right in his very own neighborhood? Someone had to get 

that testimony for them to have that and point it up, to start calling the gentleman a snitch or a rat. So, his life was threatened. 

And it’s so many different ways that we probably could utilize 

the witness intimidation without being—you know, putting a financial burden on the State, such as, I mean, simple stuff. Maybe, why 

not let the witnesses testify via video? I mean, you can testify via 

video, whereas you’re not feeling unsafe, you’re not probably at the 

place. I mean, I’m sure with today’s technology, that could be done. 

Also, you know, the postponements of the court hearings. It’s 

like, it’s amazing how, you know, a court case drags on for years 

and years and years. And for a prime example, my son had two 

shooters. One shooter was brought to justice, and just recently it 

took all these years to bring the other shooter to justice. And everybody knew who this gentleman was, however, after Johnta was 

murdered and the other witness was intimidated, no one stepped 

up. 

So now it took all the way until New Year’s Eve for me to get 

a call from the detectives, letting me know—which was very courteous of him, to let me know that they got the other shooter. However, they did not get him on my son’s case, they got him on another murder because they couldn’t get him on my son’s case because everybody was afraid to step up. So if you start protecting 

these witnesses more, ensuring them some type of safety, I’m sure 

more witnesses would step up and speak out. But if you’re not 

going to—if you’re just going to take them and get the testimonies 

and throw them to the wolves, you know, it’s obvious that nobody 

wants—like you say, you know, everybody has a life. You know, 

people want to live their life and people want to go on with their 

normal lives. They don’t want to have to relocate, move, and take 

their children from one school to another and live in fear. Who 

wants to live in fear? I mean, I don’t, you know. And I’m just grateful that, you know, the detectives and the police department did a 

great job on, you know, handling my son’s murder to give us closure. And I really, you know, appreciate the fact that they kept in 

touch, and I kept on—on them myself. And instead of me, you 

know, going ballistically crazy and wanting revenge, I chose to do 

15 

it another way by, you know, joining an organization that we basically are against violence, and we go out to try to stop, you know, 

violence. 

And I’m actually starting another organization myself, Fathers 

Fed Up. I can always let gentlemen of my character, people who 

have gone through what I’ve gone through, have a place to come 

and listen and talk and we can all, you know, have different opinions on what we need to do about going out, trying to get these 

youths. Because it starts at home, like Commissioner Ramsey was 

saying. It starts at home. And I don’t want to give my age, but 

when I came up, the whole neighborhood was in charge of a child. 

Senator SPECTER. Why don’t you want to give your age? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CANADA. Because, you know, when we had that kind of stuff 

going on where your neighbor could discipline you or your teachers 

could discipline you, it was less. We had less violence. Now it’s just 

like, a lot of people come from broken homes, a lot of people come 

from drug-infested homes. And a lot of that starts at the house and 

it escalates into violence. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Canada, have you noticed any improvement in the crime problem in Philadelphia since you were, say, a 

teenager to the present time? 

Mr. CANADA. The only improvement that I could say that I’ve 

really noticed, because I actually was a part of the gang era—I 

grew up in the 1960s and 1970s—and I do commend them for stopping the gang wars. However, anything after that, it doesn’t seem 

like it’s so much of a difference. 

Senator SPECTER. When were you a teenager, without prying too 

much? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SPECTER. Just to give an idea of the span of your experience. 

Mr. CANADA. Back in the 1970s and 1980s. 

Senator SPECTER. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. 

When you said his picture was posted, amplify what you meant 

by that. 

Mr. CANADA. No. I said his statement, the statement of one of 

the witnesses was actually posted up in a Chinese restaurant in his 

neighborhood. And what it looks like right now—— 

Senator SPECTER. The statement, the testimony he gave? 

Mr. CANADA. The testimony. That’s correct. It was posted. 

Senator SPECTER. They were trying to expose him? 

Mr. CANADA. Yes. And they were basically calling the gentleman, 

you know, a snitch or a rat, and so on and so forth, like the Commissioner was stating earlier. I’m trying to figure out why, or how 

could anyone even get, you know, a copy of something like that to— 

to post it up, which means, you know, somebody’s not being held 

accountable for, you know, things that they’re doing because—— 

Senator SPECTER. The Commissioner testified about going back 

to the movies in the 1930s, using the comment ‘‘rat,’’ somebody who 

told on somebody else. Has that gotten any worse, say, today than 

it was when you were growing up in the 1960s and 1970s? 

Mr. CANADA. No, sir. No, sir. It’s changed. It’s just a different 

slang. It’s the same terminology, it’s just put in a different way. 

16 

Today they call them snitches. They have a phrase out there, 

‘‘snitches get stitches.’’ And, you know, it’s just a different terminology. Our group, Men United, we were—we held a big protest 

about those tee shirts being printed up. We went to several stores 

and caused a lot of commotion and we got a lot of merchants to 

take those tee shirts—they had tee shirts printed up about 

snitches, don’t—stop snitching, and don’t be a snitch. So it’s just 

different terminology, that’s all. It’s the same. 

Senator SPECTER. Your son was shot 12 times? 

Mr. CANADA. That’s correct. 

Senator SPECTER. Uh-huh. Because he was going to be a witness? 

Mr. CANADA. No, my son wasn’t going to be a witness. 

Senator SPECTER. Why was he shot? 

Mr. CANADA. My son was shot—I got two different—two or three 

different reasons, but one of the reasons they print mostly was over 

a gambling debt. Two young men were arguing over a gambling 

debt. But—— 

Senator SPECTER. And so who was the witness who was intimidated? 

Mr. CANADA. Johnta. That’s the gentleman that I was speaking 

about. He—he got shot, Johnta Gravitt. He was shot and killed 10 

days later, after testifying. 

Senator SPECTER. Because he was going to be a witness on your 

son’s murder? 

Mr. CANADA. He had already testified. 

Senator SPECTER. He testified at the preliminary hearing? 

Mr. CANADA. That’s correct. Which gave—which they were still 

able to use his testimony, even though they had killed him. 

Senator SPECTER. They could use the testimony at the preliminary hearing. 

Mr. CANADA. That is correct. They used his testimony, which was 

enabling us to get closure and bringing one of the gunman to—you 

know, to justice. 

Senator SPECTER. OK. Thank you very much, Mr. Canada. 

Mr. CANADA. Thank you as well. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Canada appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator SPECTER. We’ll turn now to Mr. Michael Coard, Esq., 

criminal defense lawyer, more than 15 years of State and Federal 

trial experience, formerly worked at the Charles W. Bowser Law 

Center after he served as legal counsel for State Senator Hardy 

Williams. Let me pause and express my regret about the passing 

of Senator Hardy Williams yesterday. 

Mr. COARD. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator SPECTER. A friend of mine for decades, outstanding lawyer. 

Mr. COARD. Yes. 

Senator SPECTER. Outstanding public official. Also an outstanding basketball player, going back quite a few years. 

Mr. COARD. Absolutely. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Coard is an adjunct professor in the African Studies Department and the Urban Studies Department at 

Temple, as well as an instructor in the Criminal Justice University’s Pan-African Studies program. 

17 

He is the recipient of many awards, including the prestigious 

Cecil B. Moore award. Did you know Mr. Cecil B. Moore? 

Mr. COARD. I did not, no. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, he was a distinguished trial lawyer. 

Mr. COARD. I heard so much about him, Senator. Yes. 

Senator SPECTER. He was quite a personality. Head of the 

NAACP. 

Mr. COARD. I’ve heard all the war stories. 

Senator SPECTER. And probably had more continuances than any 

defense lawyer in the history of Philadelphia. 

Mr. COARD. They had a courtroom set up specifically for him. 

Senator SPECTER. It was more than a courtroom, it was a special 

program. Because he had so many cases, he could have been in any 

one of 20 courtrooms. So while I was DA, we decided to put in the 

one courtroom, so he sued me in the Federal court for violating his 

civil rights. The judge said, no, a District Attorney is within his 

rights, and you’ve got to go to trial and we’ve got to figure out 

where you are, because he’d have 20 listings and he wouldn’t try 

any of them. And when he had 20 listings, we thought we ought 

to try one of them, so we did set up the special courtroom. 

But notwithstanding those differences, we were good friends and 

we had quite a professional relationship. He had a very unusual accident: he fell down an elevator shaft. Did you know that? 

Mr. COARD. I did not know that. 

Senator SPECTER. Yes. Yes. A very handsome man, before he fell 

down the elevator shaft. OK. Enough of history. 

Mr. Coard, we look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL COARD, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL 

COARD, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. COARD. Thank you, Senator Specter. 

First of all, I gratefully thank you for inviting me to testify before this Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Committee on Crimes 

and Drugs, regarding ‘‘Federal Efforts to Address Witness Intimidation at the State and local Levels.’’ I am honored, as I am sure 

the other invitees are, to be here. 

I’ve been a trial lawyer for nearly 20 years, a civic activist for 

more than 15 years, a local radio show host for over 10 years, and 

a university adjunct professor for approximately 5 years. It is because of those roles that I can unequivocally say that the best— 

in fact the only—way for the Federal Government to address witness intimidation at the State and local levels is by adhering to the 

Constitution of the United States of America. 

Stated another way, the Federal Government must make sure 

that it does not break the law in order to make the law. The 

United States Constitution, the Sixth Amendment, and the Pennsylvania Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, mandate that a person 

accused of a crime has the fundamental right to be confronted with 

witnesses against him or her. 

I mention this because one of the first actions always considered 

in the commendable attempt to protect against witness intimidation is the condemnable attempt to allow illegal hearsay in as evidence in a trial or hearing. The erroneous rationale is that the 

most effective way to stop witness intimidation is to allow police ofVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:06 Sep 13, 2010 Jkt 057937 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\57937.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
18 

ficers or other persons to testify in court about what they allegedly 

heard someone else who is not in court say. Not only is that unconstitutional, it is also unfair. 

In Pennsylvania, including, obviously, Philadelphia, there is case 

law and statutory law already on the books that, under certain legally-sanctioned circumstances, allow for non-testifying witnesses’—i.e., hearsay issue-related witnesses—statements to be entered into evidence. One example is Rule 803 of the Pennsylvania 

Rules of Evidence. 

Moreover, numerous longstanding Pennsylvania public court decisions permit such throughout the criminal court process, most notably, interlia, at preliminary hearings wherein hearsay objections 

by defense counsel are often a complete waste of breath. 

Furthermore, in cases wherein witnesses do appear in court but 

purportedly are so intimidated that they testify in a manner that 

contradicts their previous statements to police against defendants, 

there also are laws already on the books that, once again, under 

certain legally-sanctioned circumstances, allow for those earlier inculpatory prior inconsistent statements to be used against defendants regardless of what those witnesses later testify to in court. 

Two examples are Rules 607 and 613 of the aforesaid Pennsylvania 

Rules of Evidence, and there are longstanding Pennsylvania public 

court decisions that also allow such. 

Accordingly, there is absolutely no need for Federal involvement 

in terms of creating law or expending limited resources, neither is 

there absolutely any need for creating more State law. Instead, 

there is simply a need to more intelligently, hence efficiently, enforce State law that already exists. 

In addition to the aforementioned State laws that already permit 

certain hearsay statements or hearsay issue-related statements to 

be entered into evidence, there are also State laws that already 

protect victims of witness intimidation, and those laws are found 

in Pennsylvania Crimes Code Section 4925, ‘‘Intimidation of Witnesses or Victims,’’ and 4953, ‘‘Retaliation Against Witness, Victim, 

or Party,’’ both of which can be charged as felonies. We all must, 

and should, have genuine sympathy for victims of witness intimidation, certainly when violence results, and especially when death results. 

But the Federal Government should not be in the business of engaging in unlawful—i.e., unconstitutional—behavior in an attempt 

to protect the public from criminals’ unlawful—i.e., murderous and 

otherwise violent—behavior. The Constitution must, and should, 

apply to all law-abiders, as well as to law-breakers; after all, this 

is America. 

I would be remiss if I failed to address what actually led to this 

hearing, and that is the Philadelphia Inquirer’s apparently well-intentioned, but frightfully inflammatory and journalistically incomplete four-part series from December 13 through December 16, 

2009. It was frightfully inflammatory in its unnecessary use of 

phrases such as ‘‘blood-splashed,’’ ‘‘witness intimidation as an epidemic in Philadelphia that pervades Philadelphia criminal courts, 

which are in a crisis,’’ and also defendants ‘‘beating cases and escaping convictions with stunning regularity.’’ It was journalistically 

incomplete in its failure to fairly acknowledge an essential prinVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:06 Sep 13, 2010 Jkt 057937 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\57937.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
19 

ciple of American criminal jurisprudence, which is that a person 

who is arrested is always presumed innocent. 

As stated to me by Troy H. Wilson, Esq., a noted criminal and 

civil court litigator and the former chairman of the Philadelphia 

Bar Association’s Criminal Justice Section, ‘‘The Inquirer’s articles 

were based on a flawed premise, which is that people released on 

so-called technicalities were guilty. However, the presumption of 

innocence is paramount and continues even after a person’s case 

has been discharged, whether due to the District Attorney’s delay, 

or any other reason.’’ 

In addition, asserted Wilson, ‘‘Defendants do not automatically 

get off scot-free during those actually relatively few times when 

cases are dismissed as a result of witnesses’ failure to appear.’’ As 

he makes clear, ‘‘The District Attorney has the legal wherewithal 

to merely file, and easily file, a motion to rearrest the defendant 

on the very same dismissed charges in such cases. It’s as simple 

as that.’’ 

The Inquirer directed most of the blame for this supposed epidemic and crisis on criminal defense attorneys, the men and 

women who serve as vigilant watchdogs to make sure that the 

State and Federal Constitutions are respected and that the local, 

State, and Federal Governments are barred from unconstitutional 

violations. The newspaper claimed that, ‘‘Defense lawyers routinely 

exploit the court system’s chaos by delaying cases to wear down 

victims and witnesses and seek spurious postponements if they 

know the prosecution witnesses are in court and ready to go.’’ 

The moniker, ‘‘Philadelphia Special’’ was used in the four-part series to describe this kind of unethical behavior. However, prominent defense counsel George H. Newman, Esq. indicated to me that 

in his more than three decades as a criminal trial lawyer, he has 

never heard of such a name or concept. In my nearly twenty years, 

neither have I, and that is because it does not exist. 

Mr. Newman made another, much more key point about the series in general when he said that, ‘‘The Inquirer’s statistical analysis is unrealistic, since it precludes preliminary hearings. As all 

lawyers and judges know, the District Attorney consistently overcharged arrested persons, filed baseless criminal accusations, and 

prosecuted unprovable cases.’’ 

’’Moreover,’’ remarked Newman, ‘‘the articles are filled with statistical misrepresentations, panicky innuendoes, and some worstcase anecdotes.’’ In connection with baseless criminal accusations 

and unprovable cases, another distinguished criminal trial attorney, namely Charles A. Cunningham, who was first assistant in 

the Defender Association of Philadelphia and has been a member 

of the Pennsylvania Bar for 35 years, pointed out to me that the 

District Attorney often accuses and jails factually innocent people. 

He noted the recent case wherein someone allegedly claimed to 

have been attacked by three persons, which resulted in three men 

being arrested, detained, and jailed when they could not afford to 

pay bail. However, after 3 months—i.e., about 90 days—when the 

preliminary hearing was finally held, the complainant identified 

only one of the three as an attacker. The second defendant was actually a Good Samaritan who had attempted to intervene on behalf 

20 

of the victim, and the third defendant was merely present with 20 

others near the scene. 

Why didn’t the District Attorney investigate the facts before, in 

effect, sentencing these two defendants to unwarranted and 

lengthy jail time? Although these two were ultimately released as 

a result of the unrebutted exculpatory evidence at the preliminary 

hearing, they lost a quarter of a year of their lives that can never 

be replaced and for which they will never be compensated, and 

they, as well as many other similarly situated persons, are cavalierly lumped into the Inquirer’s gang of defendants who are supposedly ‘‘beating cases and escaping convictions with stunning regularity.’’ 

As mentioned in Mr. Cunningham’s final comments, even if the 

criminal justice system is completely broken, it is not because of 

what the Inquirer contends. Instead, it is because of a system that 

refuses to address ‘‘the real issues that cause crime to occur in the 

first place,’’ obvious issues, such as the lack of education and employment. 

While there is no crisis, there is a problem, even if just a comparatively few witnesses are intimidated. But with every problem, 

there is always a solution, and that solution, without the need for 

a journalistic hair-on-fire-sky-is-falling alarmism, is quite simple. 

In fact, any, some, or all of the following could immediately be 

implemented: (1) housing, transportation, protection, and/or financial incentives for witnesses before trial; (2) relocation for witnesses 

after trials; (3) separate courtroom waiting rooms for witnesses; (4) 

community police/community prosecuting, coalition-building with 

ex-cons, local athletes, and local hip-hop celebrities in order to persuade citizens, especially those in the approximately 15 to 25 age 

range, that cooperating with law enforcement to protect one’s 

neighborhood does not constitute snitching; and, finally, (5) education, job training, and employment opportunities in high-crime 

neighborhoods in order to discourage criminality, which would reduce crime and which would in turn reduce even the need for witnesses. 

In conclusion, I again thank the esteemed Senator Arlen Specter 

for inviting me to testify at this Committee hearing regarding primarily the purported crisis of witness intimidation in Philadelphia. 

I end my testimony with a question. If there is so much witness 

intimidation, meaning evidence ostensibly substantial enough to 

justify arresting, charging, and jailing so many persons with that 

serious crime, why then are more than 7 out of 10 persons accused 

of that offense found not guilty or otherwise freed? 

Thank you, Senator. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Coard. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Coard appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator SPECTER. When you criticize the Inquirer article, don’t 

you think that there are major problems in the system which need 

action, such as the fugitives—estimated, one figure, 47,000 fugitives—with the need to have resources devoted to apprehending 

those individuals? Isn’t that one issue which it’s useful to have 

some spotlight on? 

21 

Mr. COARD. Absolutely. In fact, I think the Philadelphia Inquirer 

did a great service to the community by provoking this discussions. 

The primary criticism that I have, Senator, is that the Inquirer 

simply went for the easiest target, which seems to be defense attorneys, that if bad guys get off, it’s because of some trick being 

played by defense attorneys, which could not be further from the 

truth. 

Senator SPECTER. So you would concede that, as in your own 

words, the Inquirer did do some real public service in some lines? 

Mr. COARD. Absolutely. 

Senator SPECTER. And with respect to the issue of Federal grants 

to be able to assist a city like Philadelphia, which has a very low 

tax base and grave difficulties allocating funds on housing, education, et cetera, if the result is to have some Federal money, isn’t 

that a desirable consequence, too, as a result of the spotlight? 

Mr. COARD. Absolutely, positively. In fact, that was one of the 

suggestions that I included in my proposals as to how this issue 

could be addressed. So, absolutely, positively, Senator. No doubt 

about it. 

Senator SPECTER. Do you think it would be appropriate to have 

Federal legislation which would make it a Federal crime to intimidate a State court witness? 

Mr. COARD. No, and I’m glad you asked that. There’s absolutely 

no need for it, as we have now in Pennsylvania—we have two laws 

on the books where persons who commit that type of egregious 

crime could be charged with a felony. So it simply seems to me that 

the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office could go after the people, and go after them vigorously, for this type of crime. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Coard, there are many offenses which are 

Federal crimes, even though they are State court crimes as well. 

The Armed Career Criminal Act, for example, a law that I wrote 

in 1984. I had experience on so many burglary and robbery cases 

where probation was given, and we defined a career criminal 

caught with a firearm, giving a mandatory sentence. Perhaps you 

don’t think that was a good bill. Let me start by asking you if you 

think that was a good bill. 

Mr. COARD. Well, absolutely. The distinguishing factor here is 

that, why have two good laws when you already have one great 

law? We already have the laws in Pennsylvania. They cover precisely what you’re talking about and what the Inquirer is talking 

about. If there were no felony law to go after these bad guys who 

intimidate witnesses, then I wouldn’t be complaining as I am. But 

we already have it. 

Senator SPECTER. But you thought the Armed Career Criminal 

bill was a good bill? 

Mr. COARD. I think—the answer is yes. And I think any bill that 

goes after violent criminals in a way that the State law can’t do 

is always a good thing. But in this case, the State law can do it, 

and do it well. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, Mr. Coard, you practice in both the Federal and the State courts. 

Mr. COARD. Yes. 

Senator SPECTER. Isn’t it true that if it’s a Federal offense and 

the FBI is on the case and you’re going to be called into a Federal 

22 

court, that there’s considerably more concern by a prospective defendant of being prosecuted there than in the State courts? 

Mr. COARD. Yes. But—and the but is a big one—with all due respect to the Federal prosecutors, who do a great job, the county 

prosecutors in the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office do just as 

great—I won’t say better, but as good a job, if not better. I think 

the distinguishing factor is the resources that the Federal Government has that the State government doesn’t have. If we flipped 

it—— 

Senator SPECTER. That’s a big distinguishing factor. 

Mr. COARD. And so to me, that’s the issue. And not only do they 

have more resources on the Federal level, if you gave that same 

money to the District Attorney’s Office in Philadelphia, they could 

show you the same stats that the Feds do. But apart from the financial resources, there’s the type of cases. 

Senator SPECTER. Is it easier to get a continuance in the State 

court than in the Federal court? 

Mr. COARD. It’s difficult in both. But to answer your question directly, it’s almost impossible in the Federal court to get a continuance. But one thing, one point—— 

Senator SPECTER. I take that as a yes answer. 

Mr. COARD. Absolutely. One quick point I did want to make is 

that in every case I’ve had, mostly armed robbery cases that have 

left the State courts and gone to the Federal courts, the evidence 

has been overwhelming. So it seems unfair to say that the State 

prosecutors can’t get a conviction but the Federal prosecutors can 

get a conviction. 

The point is, in my experience over 20 years, the Feds get the 

better cases, the stronger cases. In my experience, I’ve never had 

a case as weak in the Federal level as I’ve had in the State level. 

So it seems to me that because the resources of the Federal Government, because they get stronger cases, it’s easier to get more 

convictions. 

Senator SPECTER. You gave some testimony on the use of hearsay 

and you dealt with prior inconsistent statements, and you can impeach a witness on a prior inconsistent statement. But isn’t that 

testimony on impeachment limited by the judge’s instruction on the 

credibility of the witness as opposed to the substantive testimony 

on the underlying offense? 

Mr. COARD. Well, I’d argue, respectfully, no. In situations where 

the Commonwealth—— 

Senator SPECTER. You don’t have to be respectful. Why do you 

argue no? 

Mr. COARD. Thank you. In every case I’ve ever had where the 

Commonwealth has attempted to bring in prior inconsistent statement, the judge would rule based on whether or not one statement 

was directly contrary to the other statement, not so much about the 

issue of credibility. But if the witness today is saying no, but the 

prosecution can show that yesterday he said yes, the judge has always allowed that in, regardless of whether the judge thinks that 

the witness was lying before. 

Senator SPECTER. But doesn’t the judge give limiting instruction? 

Let me rephrase the question: shouldn’t the judge give a limiting 

23 

instruction on cross examination going to credibility as opposed to 

substantive evidence? 

Mr. COARD. Well, yes. In fact, defense attorneys often request 

that. But to be quite honest, once the jurors have heard the inconsistency, then they’re going to make their decision. But you’re absolutely correct. 

Senator SPECTER. That’s different. 

Mr. COARD. Certainly. But to answer your question directly, yes, 

the judge can give that limiting instruction. But I think every trial 

lawyer knows that limiting instructions really don’t mean a whole 

lot. A judge will tell the jury to consider certain evidence for this, 

but not for that. That’s like telling the jury, think of everything except a blue horse. Well, the first thing they’re going to think of is 

what they were told not to. So, limiting instructions are a good 

thing because they’re the only thing, but they’re not an effective 

thing. 

Senator SPECTER. How about a mistrial? 

Mr. COARD. That’s great from a defense standpoint, but that’s 

rare. 

Senator SPECTER. If the limiting instruction is insufficient, you 

have the recourse of a mistrial. Mr. Coard, we’re going to be back 

here, I don’t know how many decades, and we’re going to have a 

young lawyer testify who occupies the Michael A. Coard chair of 

some distinguished law school. You are very articulate and obviously a good lawyer. 

Mr. COARD. Thank you, sir. 

Senator SPECTER. We thank you for coming in. 

Mr. COARD. I appreciate hearing that from you. 

Senator SPECTER. Our final witness is Professor Richard Frei, 

Associate Professor at Philadelphia Community College. He headed 

up the Snitching Project. I infer that that’s academically heading 

up a project as opposed to being a head snitcher. 

Professor FREI. No, heading up the project. 

Senator SPECTER. In conjunction with the Center for Law and 

Society. He has directed interdisciplinary, student-driven research 

initiatives on the phenomenon of snitching, trained students in applied research. He has a bachelor’s degree in Psychology and a very 

distinguished academic record, and is undertaking a very interesting line of study. 

Thank you for joining us, and we look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD L. FREI, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, 

COMMUNITY COLLEGE OF PHILADELPHIA 

Dr. FREI. Thank you, Senator Specter. Thank you for the honor 

of appearing before you today. My name is Dr. Rick Frei. I’m Associate Professor of Psychology at Community College of Philadelphia. My area of expertise is applied community research, specializing in using large-scale survey research as our teaching tool in 

my psychology courses. 

Over the past decade I have overseen a number of large-scale 

community surveys on topics such as the use of check-cashing institutions, corporal punishment, attitudes toward guns and gun violence, and over the past 2 years, the ‘‘Stop Snitching’’ phenomenon 

24 

and its impact on the community involvement in the Philadelphia 

community justice system. 

Today we’ve heard heartbreaking and disturbing testimony from 

victims and advocates regarding rampant witness intimidation that 

is prevalent in Philadelphia, although Mr. Coard seems to think it’s 

not as prevalent as the Inquirer said. 

My goal today is to frame the testimony in a larger context of 

the Stop Snitching movement. For example, in the Philadelphia Inquirer’s recent extensive reporting on the failures of our criminal 

justice system, the reporters describe the case of Martin Thomas, 

whose statement to police was turned into a threatening flyer that 

was posted throughout North Philadelphia. 

While the primary goal of this flyer was to physically threaten 

the witness, it also served a secondary purpose, identifying Thomas 

as a rat who could no longer be trusted in this neighborhood. The 

idea that cooperating with police could in fact tarnish your reputation among family, friends and neighbors, even if the perpetrator 

of the crime was a feared or despised person, is at the core of the 

Stop Snitching phenomenon. Such intimidation techniques can only 

occur if the community buys into the Stop Snitching culture. 

My goal today is to give you a better understanding of the people’s attitudes toward snitching and cooperating with police, which 

ultimately facilitate the coercive witness intimidation techniques 

that we have heard so much about today. 

The Stop Snitching phenomenon is widely discussed in the 

media, yet poorly understood as a psychological construct. It is regularly decried as a major impediment to law enforcement, and yet 

scant systematic research has been conducted to identify its possible origins. Even the word ‘‘snitch,’’ which we talked about before, 

has been so misused and overused in the media, that it’s now synonymous with anyone who cooperates with any authority figure, regardless of the situation. 

For example, recently when National Football League Commissioner Roger Goodell recently called for players to tell their teams’ 

medical staffs if they suspected a teammate showed symptoms of 

a concussion, Washington Redskin fullback Mike Sellers responded, 

‘‘We ain’t no snitches over here. This is not happening.’’ What was 

once considered a code among thieves and then a code of the street 

is quickly becoming a societal norm. 

The Snitching Project is an ongoing student-driven public policy 

research initiative in conjunction with Community College of Philadelphia’s Center for Law and Society, aimed at developing a better 

understanding of the snitching phenomenon and facilitating community discussion through education. 

The project began in 2007 as part of an applied psychology 

course at the college. Students conducted extensive library research 

on the topic of snitching and cooperating with police. Based on this 

research, students next conducted focus groups throughout the city 

of Philadelphia to get a better understanding of snitching, people’s 

attitudes toward the police, and community involvement. 

From these focus groups, we concluded that: (A) there is not one 

common definition of snitching; and (B) both attitudinal and situational factors influence whether, and to what extent, a person 

would provide evidence to the police. 

25 

We developed hypotheses regarding the nature of the snitching 

construct, possible antecedents and correlates of snitching attitudes, and situational factors, such as characteristics of the victim 

or the perpetrator, that might influence involvement. Then the students administer the survey to test their hypothesis to about 1,500 

community college students, so we had a very large sample for this. 

My goal today is going to be a brief summary of that research, 

along with some of the recommendations regarding ways to improve community involvement in our criminal justice system. I’m 

not going to go through the whole thing here, but a couple things 

I want to point out here. 

First and foremost, one of the things that Commissioner Ramsey 

had spoken about was looking at people’s life experiences and their 

attitudes toward snitching. One of the things he said was that people who had past experience with police and the criminal justice 

system and those who engaged in illegal behavior would be more 

likely to view any form of cooperating with police as a form of 

snitching. Further, they would be less likely to trust police. 

What we found was that nearly half of our respondents reporting 

being victims of crime, so out of the 1,500 students we had asked, 

almost 750 said that they had been victims of crime in the city, and 

nearly two-thirds had friends or relatives who had been victims of 

crime as well. Twenty-one percent of the respondents have been in 

trouble with the police before; 17 percent reported being falsely accused of a crime in the past; 7 percent said they had been snitched 

on before, and only 2 percent said they’d ever snitched on anyone 

else. 

What we found is that over 60 percent said that they knew a police officer personally, and nearly half reported cooperating with 

police in the past, although half the sample also said they did not 

trust police at all. Those respondents who knew police officers personally were more likely to trust the police and less likely to view 

cooperating with police as a form of snitching. 

We also hypothesized that students who engaged in illegal behavior would be more likely to find snitching as cooperating with 

police and less likely to cooperate with police in any situation. To 

assess illegal behavior, we asked students if they’d used illegal 

drugs in the past 30 days. Fifteen percent of our sample said they 

had. We also asked students if they had drunk alcohol in the past 

7 days. Since we also had students’ age, we were able to identify 

those respondents who engaged in illegal underage drinking, and 

about 13 percent of our sample fell in that category. 

Those students who engaged in these illegal behaviors were 

much more likely to view cooperating with police in any situation 

as a form of snitching. 

Senator SPECTER. Professor Frei, may we leave the statistics for 

just a moment and talk about the psychological phenomenon? 

Dr. FREI. Okay. 

Senator SPECTER. What is the origin of the disapproval of someone who has been injured, robbed, beaten, observed a homicide/ 

murder, testifying? What is wrong with that to bring social disapproval to it? 

Dr. FREI. What we found in our survey is that students were 

very concerned about how cooperating with police would influence 

26 

their reputation in the neighborhood they lived in. Many of our students—— 

Senator SPECTER. Well, let’s start with the simple proposition. 

Dr. FREI. Okay. 

Senator SPECTER. You get disapproved, but is there something 

wrong with that conduct? Identify any aspect of that conduct which 

is wrongful. 

Dr. FREI. That’s wrongful? 

Senator SPECTER. Yes. 

Dr. FREI. In regards to what? 

Senator SPECTER. What’s wrong with reporting a crime, especially if it’s a crime against yourself? 

Dr. FREI. What’s wrong with reporting a crime? 

Senator SPECTER. Somebody beat you on the head in a robbery 

and you go to the police and you testify in court. Is that person a 

snitch? 

Dr. FREI. Well, actually, in our research we asked people how 

they defined the term ‘‘snitch,’’ and what we found was that nearly 

50 percent of our students talked about any form of cooperating 

with police at all as a form of snitching: picking someone out of a 

line-up, answering police questions—— 

Senator SPECTER. Well, somebody will say anything about anything. Now, my question to you, Professor, is a snitch someone who 

is beaten in a robbery, identifies the perpetrator and testifies in 

court? 

Dr. FREI. In my definition, no. My definition of a snitch is someone who testifies against someone else as a way of reducing their 

sentence in a crime. That’s the way I define it, and that’s the way 

the majority of our students define it. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, if you don’t have the motivation to get 

a lesser sentence, you would not be a snitch? 

Dr. FREI. I wouldn’t define that as a snitch, but I think the majority of people in Philadelphia would. 

Senator SPECTER. I gave you the example of the guy who’s beaten 

on the head and robbed. Now, a witness who sees somebody beaten 

on the head and robbed and he testifies, is he a snitch? 

Dr. FREI. I wouldn’t think he’s a snitch, but I think that there’s 

a lot of people in Philadelphia that would consider anyone who cooperated with police a snitch. Is your question why is that? 

Senator SPECTER. Well, is this an evolving view? When James 

Cagney shot Humphrey Bogart in 1935 and said, ‘‘You rat’’—— 

Dr. FREI. I’m not familiar with the situation of why he shot him 

in the first place. Was he testifying against? 

Senator SPECTER. I’ll tell you why he shot him: it was in the 

script. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SPECTER. It was a good movie. But my question to you, 

aside from the illustration, which I’m surprised that a man of your 

scholarly research didn’t know about, was has the disapproval of 

snitches gotten greater in 2005 contrasted with 1935? 

Dr. FREI. I think it’s certainly been marketed. I think that part 

of it has to do with the fact that there are people who are making 

money off of the Stop Snitching movement. That certainly is a part 

27 

of it. So in that regard, I think it’s more of a cultural thing because 

people are using it to make tee shirts and to sell albums. 

Senator SPECTER. OK. Mrs. Clowden’s son sees a man dousing 

her house with gasoline to burn her up, arson/murder. Is he a 

snitch? 

Dr. FREI. For reporting that? 

Senator SPECTER. Yes. 

Dr. FREI. No, I don’t think so. 

Senator SPECTER. But in the community, would he be regarded—— 

Dr. FREI. I think in the community—well, you have to think 

about it in the larger context. It’s not just this community, it’s all 

communities. It’s in the Senate. People in the Senate don’t like to 

have other people—— 

Senator SPECTER. Well, the question of this community, all communities. Would he be regarded as a snitch? 

Dr. FREI. In many circles, yes. 

Senator SPECTER. Uh-huh. And why is that? 

Dr. FREI. Why is that? Well, I think there are a number of reasons. Let’s look at the fact that very often groups like to police 

their own. You know, I think—— 

Senator SPECTER. What’s that? What’s that? 

Dr. FREI. To police their own. A lot of—you know, when we did 

focus groups throughout the—— 

Senator SPECTER. I still didn’t understand. To police what? 

Dr. FREI. Police their own police. I mean, when we went out in 

focus groups in the city—— 

Senator SPECTER. They want to police their own people? 

Dr. FREI. Yes. 

Senator SPECTER. As opposed to having the police department police them? 

Dr. FREI. Yes. Absolutely. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, who’s going to go after this guy who commits the arson/murder? 

Dr. FREI. Who is going to go after them? Many people in the city 

would say that—— 

Senator SPECTER. Is there a posse in the neighborhood, self-help? 

Dr. FREI. We’ve seen that in the past. That’s not uncommon to 

happen. We saw that in Kensington recently where a man was accused of molesting a child and a posse went after him. People like 

to police their own group. The police don’t like outside people policing them. 

Senator SPECTER. Let’s stick with my examples, unless you want 

to be elected and run your own hearing. 

Dr. FREI. Are you requesting that I do that? That would be good. 

I’d do that. 

Senator SPECTER. If someone is considered a snitch because they 

see this guy douse the house with gasoline, then perhaps—or not 

perhaps. We ought to try to find some way to deal with that kind 

of a mentality, which is wrong. 

Dr. FREI. Uh-huh. 

Senator SPECTER. How do we do that? You’re a professor. 

Dr. FREI. I’d say we start when they’re young. One of the things 

we found in our survey was that a lot of students were told growVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:06 Sep 13, 2010 Jkt 057937 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\57937.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
28 

ing up that snitching was a bad thing, that cooperating with police 

was a bad thing. You know, we think it’s being influenced by a lot 

of outside sources, so is the family. 

Senator SPECTER. Are you saying that’s a prevailing culture in 

this community? 

Dr. FREI. I would say, as Commissioner Ramsey said, people who 

are engaged in illegal behavior, even minor illegal behaviors, are 

less likely to cooperate with police. So if, for example, let’s say 

you’re a parent and you smoke marijuana. You would tell your children, oh, make sure you don’t cooperate with police, it’s bad to 

snitch, snitching’s a bad thing. I think in many ways this is not 

coming from outside sources. A lot of times it comes from the family. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, are you saying that it’s a prevailing attitude in Philadelphia? 

Dr. FREI. Absolutely. It’s a common attitude in Philadelphia. 

Senator SPECTER. Not distinguished by neighborhoods or racial—— 

Dr. FREI. Or age. No. It’s a—— 

Senator SPECTER. Just to cooperate with police? 

Dr. FREI. Just to cooperate with police in general. 

Senator SPECTER. How many in this room think that cooperating 

with police is a bad thing to do and you’d be classified as a snitch 

and you’re doing something bad to cooperate with police; would you 

raise your hands? 

[Showing of hands.] 

Senator SPECTER. How many of you think that to cooperate with 

police and report a crime is something that you ought to do? 

[Showing of hands.] 

Ms. HINES. If someone is classified as a snitch, then they could. 

Senator SPECTER. And still be classified as a snitch? 

Ms. HINES. The way you posed the question was a little—— 

Senator SPECTER. Consider yourself under subpoena and step forward so we can hear you. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. HINES. Hi. My name’s Erica Hines. It is the correct thing to 

do, to tell if you see a crime. However, that doesn’t change the fact 

that the people in your community around with you will view you 

as a snitch. So your question was how many people think it’s 

wrong, or how many people think that it’s snitching to tell the police. I think that I would always cooperate with the police and I 

would tell the police whatever I knew if it could help someone. 

However, that doesn’t mean that the people around me in my 

neighborhood would not view me as a snitch, they would. So your 

question is sort of two-fold. Did I say that right? 

Senator SPECTER. Would you feel bad about being considered to 

be a snitch? 

Ms. HINES. Personally, I don’t. But I’m also—I mean, I’m a 35- 

year-old woman who is an attorney, who, no, I would not feel bad 

about it. But I understand that my 21-year-old brother would feel 

awful. 

Dr. FREI. I mean, you also have to understand that people rely 

on their—and in a lot of these neighborhoods where there’s not a 

strong family structure in a lot of these families, they rely on their 

29 

neighborhood to survive. You rely on the people who are your 

neighbors to get through the day, especially if you live in a violent 

neighborhood. 

Senator SPECTER. There are a lot of neighborhoods with a strong 

family structure. Are you saying that in neighborhoods with a 

strong family structure, that people consider it being a snitch to cooperate with the police? 

Dr. FREI. I would say that it’s not a precursor to it, but certainly 

at least having a family structure to fall back on for support—you 

know, if I cooperated with a crime, if I saw a crime and I cooperated, my family would support me. 

Senator SPECTER. Usually when I listen to an answer I try to figure out whether it’s yes or no. I couldn’t find your answer out at 

all. 

Dr. FREI. So, repeat the question again. 

Senator SPECTER. In a neighborhood with a strong family structure, would they consider cooperating with police to be a snitch? 

Dr. FREI. They’d be less likely. I’ll say that. 

Senator SPECTER. You’re still dodging, Professor. 

Dr. FREI. I can’t say no. I mean, I’m sure there are people—and 

our study found this, too. There were people who came from strong 

families who still consider cooperating with police being a snitch. 

I think they are less likely. In psychology we don’t like to give yes 

or no answers, it’s more or less likely. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, you have identified a problem of sufficient intensity that it requires a response, in my opinion. I want 

to study it further, but it requires a response. The response may 

be, very directly, to instruct children in school that there’s a duty 

to cooperate with law enforcement, where somebody—where they’re 

a witness to something which is wrongful conduct, and that it is 

not something to be ashamed of, to cooperate with police, but something that ought to be done. 

So if law enforcement breaks down because of some misguided 

notion about being a snitch, it’s something we have to deal with. 

What do you think, Mr. Coard? I ask you there because you’re nodding yes, otherwise I wouldn’t have asked you. 

Mr. COARD. I think first we need to define what snitching is. 

From my standpoint, snitching is not telling the police when you 

witness a crime. That’s simply being a good citizen. Snitching is 

when you’re one of the criminals and you get caught and you tell 

on your compatriots. That’s snitching. That’s the textbook definition of snitching. 

I mean, they say there’s no honor among thieves, and maybe 

there isn’t any honor among thieves. But from my standpoint, 

snitching has a specific definition. Unfortunately, most people don’t 

know what it is, but snitching does not mean telling the police 

when you see a crime. It means being a criminal and telling on 

your partners. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, that is an acceptable definition for social 

conduct, I would say. But I would take it one step further. Frequently somebody will testify against a co-conspirator to get a reduced sentence, and of course that is sanctioned by the law. 

Mr. COARD. Yes. 

30 

Senator SPECTER. That is encouraged. Do you think that the person who tells the truth against a co-conspirator to get a lesser sentence himself or herself is doing something wrong? 

Mr. COARD. Doing absolutely nothing wrong, doing everything 

right. A snitch nonetheless, but doing everything right. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SPECTER. Well, it’s been very illuminating. Thank you 

very much, Mrs. Clowden, Mr. Canada, Mr. Coard, and Professor 

Frei. 

What the Subcommittee is going to do, is examine these issues 

further. One action is to try to encourage and support grants to cities like Philadelphia for witness protection programs. Another line 

would be my inclination, after some further study, to propose Federal legislation to make it a Federal crime to intimidate a State 

court witness. That turns on whether it’s involved in interstate 

commerce. You can’t take something which is purely local. But 

criminals move in interstate commerce, and I think that would be 

upheld. I think it would be socially desirable. 

My conclusion from the witnesses’ testimony and my own experience is that people are a lot more apprehensive about being 

charged with a Federal crime when the FBI comes in and appearing before a Federal judge, where the cases are better prepared, 

they do have more resources, the sentences are longer, and the continuances are much tougher to get and cases don’t go on for years. 

When the DA is criticized in Philadelphia for a conviction rate 

which turns on witnesses who do not appear because they are intimidated, that’s not the DA’s fault. 

But I think there is a gigantic problem in Philadelphia today 

called witness intimidation, tragic stories told by Mr. Clowden and 

Mr. Canada, tragic stories. Beyond the personal tragedy for their 

own families, it’s a breakdown of the criminal justice system. When 

murderers get away with it because witnesses are intimidated, 

there’s no evidence, as we heard in the testimony, that’s a total 

breakdown of the rule of law and that’s an appropriate role for the 

Federal Government to come and help out. 

Thank you all very much. That concludes our hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 11:13 a.m. the hearing was concluded.] 

[Submission for the record follow.] 

31 


57937.001
32 


57937.002
33 


57937.003
34 


57937.004
35 


57937.005
36 


57937.006
37 


57937.007
38 


57937.008
39 


57937.009
40 


57937.010
41 


57937.011
42 


57937.012
43 


57937.013
44 


57937.014
45 


57937.015
46 


57937.016
47 


57937.017
48 


57937.018
49 


57937.019
50 


57937.020
51 


57937.021
52 


57937.022
53 


57937.023
54 


57937.024
55 


57937.025
56 


57937.026
57 

Æ 


57937.027