I'm a 1st year prosecutor dealing with juvenile BENCH trials.

I have several assault trials coming up - mostly involving school fights. My responding/arresting officer did not witness any part of the assault. My officer arrested the defendant a day or two after the fight (after the victim positively identified the defendant as the person who assaulted her).

There was no confession or statement given to the arresting officer by the defendant.

So, if I subpoena the officer, he really won't have much to add at trial...just that "I arrested the defendant."

I've subpoenaed the officers before in this circumstance and they seem to have an attitude like "why am I here testifying...I didn't see anything."

My question to this board is the following:

do I need to subpoena the officer in these types of cases (i.e. when the officer didn't witness any part of the criminal offense)?

If the answer is NO, then my witnesses will be the victim and 1 or 2 eyewitnesses. Wouldn't that be enough?

In a juvi BENCH trial I would not necessarily have the officer there but I would put him on stand-by. You never know what the sweet little darling or his frineds or his mother/father are going to say was said or done during the arrest that you may need the officer to rebutt.

However, my answer would be different for a jury trial.

I agree. At a bench trial, the judge will not be too impressed with the officer's testimony as you describe, but a jury likes to see that the police at least got involved, did some sort of investigation, and determined to make the arrest.

Even if all your officer says is, I came and took statements, then I decided to detain defendant, the jury at least knows who the officer thought was guilty.