Presence of Arresting Officer at Trial
An arresting officer has many responsibilities in the criminal justice system, both generally and within the specific framework of your case. One of the primary duties of an arresting officer is to be present in court for all the proceedings concerning an arrest they made. This is to ensure that the facts of the arrest are properly recorded in the official record, and the full story of your case can be presented before the judge and jury.
Witness Testimony: The most important role of the arresting officer during a formal proceeding is testifying. The details of their testimony can have a significant impact on the result of the trial. An arresting officer will provide testimony about the arrest itself, who was present, the specific details of the arrest, and will go through the arrest report they write after the event. This is commonly done immediately after the prosecutor’s opening statement at the beginning of the hearing.
Deciding on Charges: Sometimes an arresting officer will determine it is in the best interest of all parties that certain charges should not be pressed in court . This is completely at the discretion of each judge. At times the judge and prosecutor will decide not to press charges due to the arresting officer testifying to more information about the arrest that is not in the arrest report. This could include the person who was given a traffic citation being allowed to leave without penalty due to the fact that the arresting officer felt that charging them was not in the best interests of anyone involved. For example, if you were arrested for an undisclosed violation of a traffic law, and the future investigation of that arrest determined that you were driving without an insurance card, the judge could decide to dismiss the charge against you because the ticket was based on an assumption about the events rather than the actual facts of the arrest and investigation afterwards.
The testimony of an arresting officer in your case is vital to the outcome of the trial. Because of this, it is very important to closely analyze every aspect of your case with your attorney to ensure that your best interests are protected.
Presence of Arresting Officer is Required By Law
Under certain circumstances, the arresting officer is mandated by law to appear in court. If an officer fails to appear for a scheduled court date, this could have a positive outcome for defendants that might go unrecognized by less experienced attorneys. Additionally, under rules of criminal procedure, the defendant has the right to have his case dismissed if the arresting officer fails to appear in a timely manner.
In Pennsylvania, for example, Rule 1006(a)(4) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure states that "when deemed necessary by the attorney for the Commonwealth, the court may, on motion of the attorney for the Commonwealth and in accordance with the following procedures, direct that the testimony of Commonwealth witnesses be taken in one or more of the following ways: (A) at a hearing held pursuant to Rule 540 (Preliminary Hearing); or (B) by deposition." Pa.R.Crim.P. 1006(a)(4).
In violation of Rule 1006(a)(4), when an officer fails to appear at the preliminary hearing, this violates both the spirit and intent of the law. When an officer fails to appear at a preliminary hearing, upon proper motion of defense counsel, the court may dismiss the charges against the defendant on grounds that the Commonwealth cannot, or has not, guaranteed it will bring its witnesses to trial. Commonwealth v. Wright, 706 A.2d 364 (Pa. Super. 1997).
In the Wright case, above, police failed to appear at several preliminary hearings citing bad weather. The defendant was charged with rape, among other offenses. Defense counsel filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 1006(a)(4), and the prosecution responded that "the weather was bad and that all of the case attorneys had been subjected to excessive travel time…the Commonwealth based this contention on the fact that some of the attorneys who had to appear on the defendant’s preliminary hearing were from the Eastern District of the County, another area of the state which was subject to heavy snowfall and bad weather conditions."
The court, however, could not accept the Commonwealth’s excuse for the officers’ failure to appear at the preliminary hearing, noting that "[w]hile it is true that the statute does not specifically name ‘Bad Weather’ as proper grounds to avoid testifying…[c]learly the weather did not deter the police officers responsible for the prosecution of other cases within the jurisdiction of the District Justice in question."
What this means for defendants is that if the arresting officer fails to appear at the preliminary hearing without a good reason, the charge(s) may be dismissed.
Result of Officer’s Absence at Trial
But let’s say the officer is scheduled to appear in court and fails to do so without a valid excuse. What’s next? For most misdemeanor cases, the prosecution cannot proceed without the arresting officer. In which case, the court will normally not only vacate the warrant that prompted your arrest, but the court will also toss the case out of court. The state justice system believes that an arrest, or ‘added value without prosecution,’ wastes tax dollars.
However, let’s say the officer is scheduled to appear, but fails to do so for some reason, but isn’t the arresting officer. in this case, the judge may decide to allow the case to proceed without the arresting officer—in which case, you must wait to see how the judge sees it.
When the arresting officer schedules his absence with the court, the judge may allow the case to proceed—especially if there is a witness to your arrest, such as a cop that arrived on the scene after you were arrested. The judge may also allow the case to proceed if the court has many cases on its docket that day. In short, the judge is the one who determines whether you have to wait for the officer’s testimony.
Bear in mind that an arresting officer’s nonappearance in court is considered only for minor offenses. Serious crimes may require the court to reschedule the case.
Outcome is Affected By Officer Testimony
The requirement of an arresting officer testifying in person in court can have a significant impact on the verdict in a criminal case. For example, in State v. Lawson, 241 P.3d 500 (2010), the state argued that the conviction of a man for drunk driving was supported by arresting officers Nadine Seitz and officer Brian Hitt. Given that the officers testified at trial through video to corroborate that Lawson was indeed intoxicated at the time, it is no surprise that Lawson was found guilty. However, contemporaneous testimony by the officers on the stand would obviously have served to provide a greater assurance that he was guilty .
In contrast, in State v. Ybanez, 926 P.2d 1059 (1996), the arresting officer, Bill Foster, never actually appeared in court despite being the only witness against Ybanez. As a result, while another officer who arrived on the scene, Eric Gordon, testified that Ybanez was guilty of DUI, "the remaining evidence is insufficient to support Ybanez’s conviction."
There are many other significant cases that should be considered when explaining to laypersons when the testimony of an arresting officer can have a positive impact on the outcome of a case in court.
Defense May Challenge Officer’s Absence
Imagine a scenario where an arresting officer doesn’t show up to testify in a criminal court case. Is there anything a defense attorney can do if this is the case? Fortunately, there are a number of different strategies that might be employed by the defense to ensure officers are held accountable when they are absent from the proceedings. One tactic utilized by the defense is to complain with the judge about the missing officer. If an officer presents a pattern of failing to appear, the court may deem the evidence obtained by the officer as inadmissible in court. If this evidence was vital to the prosecution’s case, it is possible that the case will be immediately dismissed. A second tactic is to question the motives of the officers in the case. The defense will need to show good reason for the officer to be absent. If the officer has been on extended vacation, the officer may receive sanctions from the police department. If it is determined that the officer is present in the area during the case — that the officer just did not show up because he or she was preoccupied — then the judge may issue a bench warrant or subpoenas demanding the officer be present in court. In some situations, the defense might simply conclude that it’s in the client’s best interest not to press charges. Defendants may refuse to fight for a dismissal, and the judge may dismiss the case out of hand if the case has not moved ahead for many months. If the case is viewed as being stale because of the missing officer, the judge may simply dismiss the case. While the defense does not have control over whether an officer will show up to court, there’s no question that the failure of the officer to show up will be taken into account by the judge. In many cases, the missing officer will seriously hurt the prosecution’s case.
Trial Readiness: Officer and Legal Team
When preparing for trial, the presence of arresting officers can be an important factor in how evidence is presented and what percentage of that evidence is believed. Officers show up for trial to give testimony about their actions and observations regarding the incident. However, sometimes it is not necessary for officers to show up for trial. In those cases, the State will introduce evidence from the officer during the testifying of witnesses and submitting of documents.
The level of coordination between the lawyers and the arresting officer can make a big difference in whether that officer needs to appear in court and how that officer presents testimony about the case. If a lawyer explains to the arresting officer what his theory of the case is and coordinates with him about his trial testimony, the case presented will be stronger. Meanwhile, if there is not good coordination during pre-trial preparation, the officer could contradict the lawyer or the lawyer could have no idea what the officer will say .
In cases where an arresting officer had input during the trial preparation stage, he could have the case pretty well figured out. In such cases, the arresting officer is probably ready for the trial and to testify on behalf of the State. In those cases, there may be no reason for the defense lawyer to call the officer as a witness. Also, some courts hold that if you use only the arrest report to introduce evidence, then there is no reason to bring the arresting officer to testify.
If the lawyer uses the arrest report to introduce evidence, this means having as much of that report read to the jury as possible. Many lawyers recommend bringing the entire arrest report, including the statement of the defendant, and have the prosecutor read it to the jury or submitted to the Judge and made an exhibit in the case. Reading or submitting the entire arrest report is important because a very small portion of it may help in the defense of that client.