By Carlos Miller
The daughter of a Palm Beach County Commissioner has raked in $56,000 in taxpayer’s money to teach deputies how to testify.
Not only is this a possible conflict of interest, but if deputies need to take classes in telling the truth, then maybe they are not cut out to be deputies.
According to the South Florida Sun Sentinel.
Michelle Santamaria, a former prosecutor in the Palm Beach County State Attorney’s Office, said she came up with the idea to start a company, called Testifying Made Simple, while working as a prosecutor. She left the job after securing the contract with the sheriff’s office.
Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw said the classes are necessary.
“We had several comments from different prosecutors saying your deputies just aren’t doing well in court. They just haven’t had the training. They don’t get it in the police academy.”
It should be a matter of simply stating “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”
And why should deputies get tax-funded training when anybody else who takes the stand will not get this training?
Sounds unconstitutional to me.
Popularity: 5% [?]
23 responses so far ↓
1 ALL BE DAMNED // Dec 7, 2009 at 2:41 AM
U have got to be kidding me
Classes for answering questions?
that sounds like coaching witch is against the law anyway. Isnt it?
2 Catinthewall // Dec 7, 2009 at 8:26 AM
I would be for this on two conditions: Complete disclosure of the class’s information, and public availability of films of this class, the same way many universities film and publish lectures for free.
Like either will ever happen, even though taxpayers paid for it. -.-
3 mepsipax // Dec 7, 2009 at 11:10 AM
This is ridiculous.
4 Jeremy // Dec 7, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Okay, I will admit that as a photographer and open government guy I read most of these articles and agree with you, however this one is the exception.
Yes, officers should be taught how to testify, they are Professionals. They aren’t just Joe Blow the lay witness, they are the Executive arm of the government and put your photography and first amendment concerns aside, and lets look at what types of cases officers may have to testify during. Let’s imagine your child is brutally raped and then murdered (sorry, but it would strike a nerve for most) and then you have some deputy dillwad who can testify well for the DA but the defense attorney twists things around and makes the officer look bad. Now your perp is walking. Did the officer do you a service? Does that officer need additional training?
If your view of JUSTICE is about facts and truth prevailing, you are disillusioned. Consider the rules of evidence and fruits from the poisonous tree. If the smoking gun was thrown out of a murder trial and the perp walked, does that mean he didn’t kill someone? NO.
Justice is a chess match. Plain and simple.
5 ALL BE DAMNED // Dec 7, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Jeremy i hate to disagree with you but let me ask u this ?
The attornies would twist it around EVEN if the officer was trained to testify
GUESS what it is illiagal to COACH wittnesses in the state of nebraska EVEN LEO”S
this training is considered coaching they do it for a reason ( bar it for me to guess that reason )
it gives the Prosicutor an advantage that seems unfair against the common man so lets say yes your child was raped and murdered and they put the WRONG man behind bars because the ( corrupt ) cops desided he was the guy they wanted behind bars………
this training helps them LIE BETTER
6 Rich // Dec 7, 2009 at 2:12 PM
This does not surprise me at all. I have seen tons of Police testify. It is easy to see which ones understand the right way to do it and which ones do not. From what I’ve seen, it teaches them how to react when the defense crossed them and questions their authority. They learn how not to go into “Contempt of Cop” mode.
7 MrMe11 // Dec 8, 2009 at 1:35 AM
I normally agree with you Carlos,but this time I have to disagree. Since a police officer is viewed as a professional, they should have proper training on how to testify. I’ve seen speeders get off only because the officer forgot to testify that he made the traffic stop in the courts jurisdiction. Also an officer needs to know how to articulate all the necessary elements of the crime. In addition, the officers in my area already take a similar class during the academy. This class is probably nothing more than an advanced/refresher course in court proceedings. I see nothing nefarious about this.
8 Johnny Law // Dec 8, 2009 at 3:18 AM
“Sounds unconstitutional to me.”
I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
9 Carlos Miller // Dec 8, 2009 at 6:29 AM
The Constitution guarantees all Americans a fair trial.
If a select number of government employees are going to receive special training on how to testify while the rest of the general public, which happen to be even less accustomed to taking the witness stand than your average cop, is denied this training, then yes, it appears very unconstitutional.
10 Carlos Miller // Dec 8, 2009 at 6:32 AM
In my trial, one of the main things my attorney tapped on was to force the officers to contradict themselves by asking simple questions about the night of my arrest.
Now who is to say that this training does not include a lesson where cops should get together before the trial and make sure they have consistent stories rather than just go in there and tell the truth as best as they know it?
11 Carlos Miller // Dec 8, 2009 at 6:37 AM
Prosecutors and defense attorneys are trained to tear a witness’s story apart to benefit their client.
What this former prosecutor turned teacher is basically doing it teaching the cops how to keep from allowing their story from falling apart at the hands of a skilled defense attorney.
But where does that leave a suspect who decides to take a stand? Or a witness whose testimony supports the suspect?
They are not getting special training in how to handle an overzealous prosecutor while sitting on the witness stand.
Cops already have the benefit of their badge and uniform to buy them credibility in the eyes of jurors.
But now they need more of an advantage?
And they’re going to keep calling it a “fair trial”?
12 RC // Dec 8, 2009 at 1:31 PM
I agree with you to a degree Carlos. I believe that if the police are getting this training, the specific course guidelines should be disclosed to the public, as well as an option for the average Joe to take the course (which may already be available). I wouldn’t be surprised if the prosecutor offers classes to the public as she is running a business.
13 Johnny Law // Dec 8, 2009 at 1:32 PM
I’ve been to such training and it is nothing as devious as you imagine. All it really consists of is simple things like looking at the jury while you answer the questions.
Just answer the questions posed to you and don’t over-explain something.
If you feel a question is out of line, pause a second before answering to see if the prosecutor intends to object.
Don’t get argumentative with the defense attorney. It just makes you look unprofessional.
Don’t guess if you don’t know the answer. Don’t be afraid to say that you don’t know if that is the truth. Defense attorneys often refuse to accept this an answer and keep asking the same question different ways until the witness gives an answer.
These are the kinds of things taught in these classes. People aren’t taught to lie or get their stories together. Cops have to testify all the time so of course their departments want them to be effective. I really don’t understand how or why you would object to this.
14 Mark Jackson // Dec 8, 2009 at 5:07 PM
Actually, this is a good thing. Do you think that police are not already coached on what to say? Do we really believe that cops don’t get together in a back room and decide how they are going to approach what they call “testilying”?
So, here’s the thing. Any decent defense attorney can just submit interrogatories or request for admissions on if they have ever been trained how to testify. This would almost amount to being added to a brady list.
15 Ray // Dec 9, 2009 at 10:13 AM
Excellent point Mark.
“So officer Bob, you work for the state as does the prosecuting attorney ? … And has the state ever paid for training, told you, or described to you, what to say or not say before the court ? … Judge, I move to dismiss this witness”
16 RC // Dec 9, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Johnny Law – You make an excellent argument for the other side of this training. If that is all that this training is about, I don’t have a single problem with it. I’ve been on the stand a couple of times myself, and regardless of whether you are telling the truth (as I was) or not, it is very nerve racking. Some people just aren’t very good at taking the stand, myself included.
17 B0b Foreman // Dec 11, 2009 at 10:51 PM
This is unfair to defendants they are not coached on how to testify to win their case. It should be illegal. Why can’t the officers just tell the plain and simple truth instead of being taught to mislead the judge.
18 Johnny Law // Dec 12, 2009 at 5:29 AM
Bob, you sure are quick to make assumptions. How do you know they are being taught to mislead the judge? Did you read my comment about what is in these classes? Somebody shoo the black helicopters away!!
19 Catinthewall // Dec 12, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Even assuming that this class doesn’t teach anything that encourages perjury, there are two issues at stake here. Many people are protesting that this is preemptive witness coaching, which is a matter for the courts to decide. I’m assuming you consider this doesn’t count as such, from your defense of the subject.
The other issue that Carlos has brought up both in the article and in the comments is that the special treatment of these deputies is an apparent violation of the constitutional concept of a fair trial. If prosecution wants to use a witness, the defense gets to cross examine. If the defense wants to use a piece of evidence, the prosecution gets time to examine it in detail, and vice versa.
When one side of a trial gets special treatment, the trial is no longer in balance. This is why both sides get a say in who makes up the jury. In this case, the prosecution is getting an advantage in that they are getting witnesses who have already graduated from witness 101, while the defense has witnesses that can be excluded if they’ve been given even a crash course on the subject.
Do you think prosecution witnesses should be the only ones who get these classes, or should they be available to all taxpayers willing to sign up? By being a deputy, it can be expected one will be testifying on a regular basis, while a normal citizen might only testify once or twice in their lives, if that. How would you propose making the trial balanced again? The only two ways I see are allowing the defense to train their witnesses, which is currently illegal, or bar these classes.
20 Johnny Law // Dec 13, 2009 at 12:30 PM
Just because an officer has been taught an effective way to testify doesn’t change the defendant’s right to a fair trial. The evidence and facts don’t change. This is just that the officers have decent communication skills on the stand. The defense attorney still gets to do cross-examination and can ask any questions he/she wants.
Claiming that this gives the state an unfair advantage is like saying it is not a fair trial because the prosecutor is an experienced trial lawyer and the defense attorney is fresh out of law school. It still doesn’t change the facts of the trial.
Defense attorneys often call “expert” witnesses who testify for a living. Do you honestly think they haven’t gone to some kind of class for speaking on the stand? If people want to go to such a class, I am sure they are available out there.
21 Brian // Dec 14, 2009 at 1:59 PM
There’s no incompatibility between telling the truth and learning how to testify concisely and accurately in a way people can understand.
Lawyers (good ones) teach their clients to do this all the time. I am an attorney, and I coach my clients extensively on how to testify well before I ever allow them on a stand or to a deposition.
It is entirely possible to be on the stand telling the truth, but do it in an incoherent way, so that the jury/judge will not understand the facts you are stating, or miss key facts.
I for one, don’t see anything wrong with teaching people who testify regularly how to do it in an efficient manner, so long as it is done with the requirement for truthfulness in mind.
Cops who want to lie already know how to do that. There’s no reason this course would make them any more effective at it.
22 Bob // Dec 19, 2009 at 9:34 AM
It’s called testilying and they need to know how to do it so it’s not so obvious they get caught. If it’s too blatant the lawyers and judges are embarrassed by it and people wouldn’t trust any police and . . .
Oops, too late
23 Johnny Law // Dec 19, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Yeah…that’s probably not right Bob.
Leave a Comment