HOME / explainer: Answers to your questions about the news.

Can I Tamper With My Witness?What if the judge didn't tell me not to?

By Daniel EngberPosted Thursday, March 16, 2006, at 7:02 PM ET

Download the MP3 audio version of this story here, or sign up for the Explainer's free daily podcast on iTunes.

The death penalty trial of Zacarias Moussaoui may be abandoned, prosecutors told the judge on Wednesday. The judge had decided to exclude a major component of the government's case the day before, after she learned that a prosecutor had tampered with several witnesses in direct violation of her court order. Does a federal judge really need to tell lawyers not to tamper with witnesses?

RSS

Not exactly. Title 18, Section 1512 of the U.S. Code makes it a crime to tamper with a witness, a victim, or an informant. As a result, a lawyer doesn't need a judge to tell her that she can't kill, threaten, intimidate, or "corruptly influence" a witness so as to prevent or alter his testimony. (The law against obstruction of justice can also apply to cases of witness tampering.) But judges do have to be explicit in their proscription of less flagrant practices, like excessive witness "coaching."

Related in Slate

Daniel Engber explained how the government knows what it's getting when it offers a plea bargain and described how lawyers test out their evidence at a mock trial. He also defined the term "runaway grand jury."

Coaching can be a problem if it causes the testimony of one witness to be influenced by the testimony of another. A prosecutor might fish for a certain version of events by presenting her witness with other evidence from the case. If she tells the witness what other people have already said in court, the witness may change his story to match.

Judges can try to keep this from happening by sequestering the witnesses. That doesn't mean that a bailiff will confiscate their newspapers and lock them in a hotel—but it does mean that the lawyers can't tell them what other witnesses are saying at the trial. (In the Moussaoui case the witnesses were instructed to avoid media accounts of the trial as well.) Either side can request one of these sequestration orders under Rule 615 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, or the judge can issue it at her own discretion. In fact, it's common practice for a judge to sequester the witnesses at the start of a criminal trial.

What if a prosecutor coaches the witness a little bit too much before the trial even starts? Lawyers can start prepping someone for the stand well before the judge has a chance to issue a sequestration order. That means they can present their witness with documentary evidence that they plan to introduce in court, or they can tell him what their other witnesses are going to say under oath. These practices wouldn't necessarily run afoul of Rule 615, nor would they amount to criminal tampering under section 1512. But lawyers are under an ethical obligation to avoid coaching a witness in such a way that would distort his testimony. A prosecutor who violated this code might not face criminal and civil contempt citations (like the ones threatened for the Moussaoui blunder), but she could find herself in front of a state ethics committee.

Bonus Explainer: Can the government appeal the judge's decision to exclude evidence? Yes. Under 18 U.S.C. Section 3731, prosecutors can appeal a district court decision to suppress evidence as long as they can demonstrate that the excluded evidence is vital to their case and that they're not just trying to delay the trial. They'll be stuck if the appeals court fails to act: If the missing evidence sinks their case—and the Moussaoui jury rejects the death penalty—they won't be able to mount another appeal.

Got a question about today's news? Ask the Explainer.

Explainer thanks Dan Richman of Fordham University.

E-MAIL

RECOMMEND... Get Slate RSS Feeds

Daniel Engber is a senior editor at Slate. He can be reached at .

COMMENTS

Remarks From The Fray:

There is a fair amount of coaching that goes on (and is even expected) in civil litigation. As we used to say, you can refresh a witness' recollection with toilet paper, it's up to the factfinder to determine whether that recollection is then credible.

The difference here is that there were explicit court orders. One oral when the lawyer was in the courtoom and one written several days later, instructing that in this particular case the information was not to be used to prep the witnesses. As we are talking about potentially killing someone at the end of the factfinding process, it is utterly reasonable to require each witness to testify from their own recollection only and to be un-tainted by the reports of any other witnesses. Carla Martin's conduct may or may not have risen to the level of tampering, but it sure as hell looks like contempt to me.

--rundeep

(To reply, click here.)

(3/17)

What did you think of this article?

Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum

POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES