Governor vetoes bills opposed by law enforcement

San Francisco Chronicle
Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has vetoed legislation for the second straight year that would have required tape-recording police interrogations, a measure recommended by a commission formed to examine the causes of wrongful convictions.

The governor also rejected bills that would have allowed testimony by a jailhouse informant only if another witness corroborated it, and would have established a task force to write guidelines for police at lineups and photo identifications.

All three bills were recommended by the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, which the state Senate created in 2004 to look into cases in which innocent people have been imprisoned and propose safeguards. The 23 commission members include prosecutors, defense lawyers, police representatives and scholars.

Organizations representing police chiefs and sheriffs opposed all three bills. A district attorneys association opposed the measure on jailhouse informant testimony and was neutral on the other two.

The vetoes, which Schwarzenegger issued over the weekend, demonstrate "once again the power of California's law enforcement agencies to block needed justice reform," former Attorney General John Van de Kamp, chairman of the commission, said Monday.

All three measures, he said, were "modest bills which were based on the best science and the best practices available." He said they had been drafted to satisfy concerns Schwarzenegger expressed when he vetoed earlier versions of the interrogation and lineup bills last year.

The governor said in his latest veto messages that the bills were not needed and would unduly restrict police investigations. Representatives of police groups and prosecutors were unavailable for comment.

The interrogation measure, SB511 by Sen. Elaine Alquist, D-Santa Clara, would have required officers to record interrogations of suspects in police stations or jails in cases involving violent felonies.

A study by Van de Kamp's commission found that suspects often confess to crimes they don't commit and that tape-recording would help jurors evaluate a defendant's claim of a false or coerced confession. The commission said many law enforcement agencies already tape a majority of their interrogations and that courts in six other states have required the recordings.

Schwarzenegger said the bill would "deny law enforcement the flexibility necessary to interrogate suspects." He did not say how recording would have that effect, and the commission's executive assistant, Chris Boscia, said he was puzzled by the governor's statement.

Another vetoed measure, SB609 by Sen. Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles, would have barred testimony by a jailhouse informant unless another witness supported it.

Romero and other supporters said wrongful convictions in numerous cases, including some death penalty cases outside California, have been traced to false testimony by jailhouse witnesses seeking lenient treatment. But Schwarzenegger said the measure was not needed because prosecutors rarely use informants as witnesses.

"When that kind of testimony is necessary, current criminal procedures provide adequate safeguards against misuse," he said in his veto message.

The third bill, SB756 by Sen. Mark Ridley-Thomas, D-Los Angeles, addressed what the commission described as a recurring problem of mistaken identifications by eyewitnesses at lineups and photo displays of suspects. The panel said such mistakes are often prompted by subtle hints from officers.

The measure would have required the attorney general to set up a task force to consider voluntary guidelines for police, including the commission's proposal that lineups be supervised by officers who are unaware of a suspect's identity.

Schwarzenegger said police departments must be free to develop their own policies, based on "unique local conditions," and that statewide guidelines would only get in the way.

The article

[This is perhaps why Gov. Terminator vetoed the California legislative solutions.]

Don't handcuff police
Opinion | Editorial
Wednesday, October 24, 2007 at 12:30 am

ASKING BARRY Scheck for advice on how to improve Georgia's criminal justice system is like asking the head of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals for help in improving the taste of Kentucky Fried Chicken.

Mr. Scheck, a nationally known defense attorney who was a member of O.J. Simpson's legal defense team, knows his stuff. He's an expert in finding holes in witness testimony and slip-ups in police procedure.

Indeed, in the eyes of our nation's adversarial legal system, he's just doing his job ... and doing it well.

But that doesn't mean state lawmakers should follow his advice - especially if it means criminals might go free.

Mr. Scheck told legislators in Atlanta on Monday that Georgia police agencies should have basic standards in place when they ask witnesses to identify criminal suspects.

He pointed to evidence, collected by his Innocence Project, that shows about a fifth of about 300 law enforcement agencies in the state have written policies for how they interview witnesses when using suspect photos or line ups. In his eyes, that apparently means the other 80 percent are doing a poor job.

He believes that standardizing police procedures - and, using simple techniques - to keep from influencing witnesses' statements would help police and prosecutors build a more persuasive case for jurors.

Here's a news flash: The vast majority of prosecutors and police investigators already understand the importance of going to court with solid, credible testimony from witnesses.

If they don't have this key component nailed down, or, if there's evidence that suggest police fouled up their investigation, there's a strong chance they will lose in court. They don't need one of O.J.'s lawyers to tell them how to boost their conviction rates.

The goal of any police investigation and criminal prosecution is to find and convict the person who committed the crime. Convicting the wrong person is justice denied.

Have mistakes been made in Georgia? Certainly. That's true of anything that involves humans. But new technology, particularly DNA testing, has helped police and prosecutors do a better job of separating the guilty from the innocent.

This improvement in police forensics is significant - and not because it spawned popular TV shows such as CSI: Crime Scene Investigation.

Mr. Scheck, as part of his presentation to lawmakers, introduced a rape victim from North Carolina who was assaulted in 1984. She identified her alleged attacker in a police lineup, and her testimony helped send the defendant to prison. Unfortunately, it was the wrong man. The real attacker was identified - 11 years later - by DNA evidence.

What happened in that instance was a shame. But to argue that Georgia must change today's laws and police procedures because of a 23-year-old case and an 11-year-old exoneration is ludicrous. That's like trying to tell today's heart surgeons how to operate based on out-dated techniques and medical equipment. It doesn't make sense.

Do police officers in Georgia need more training on how to deal with witnesses? Perhaps.

The average officer now gets about three hours of training on this skill, while detectives get another 30 minutes of instruction in their 80-hour advance course. That may not be enough. Beefing up the training requirements should be considered.

Lawmakers should be commended for looking at ways to improve Georgia's criminal justice system. But establishing a one-size-fits all process for all police departments is not a solution, and could make matters worse.