# Would a police officer be fired or disciplined in this situation?



## ironpony (Feb 25, 2018)

For my story, basically a witness in a court case, accuses one of the police detectives on the case, of blackmailing her to commit perjury.  She accuses the officer of threatening her that if she didn't commit perjury and say exactly what he wanted, that he would take measures to frame her as a co-conspirator with the defendant.

Now she is just lying of course and is just saying this to ruin the officers credibility in the case.  However, since it's a high profile media case and this in a courtroom on a public record, would the police department have to take damage control and fire him or discipline him in some way?  I am hoping no, cause I want him to be able to stay on the case and continue.

But would he have to fired or taken off the case for public damage control?  Or would the department's attitude be, that officers are accused of misconduct all the time by people, and we can't fire them based on what people say, otherwise they would be taken off cases all the time, every time they are accused of misconduct.

But what do you think?


----------



## Bloggsworth (Feb 25, 2018)

First they would investigate the truth of the claim.


----------



## ironpony (Feb 25, 2018)

Well all of they have is her word to go on, since she said he threatened her to do what he said, and that was all.  So the police have nothing to go by, but her accusation of a threat, which is now a public record.  Of course the cop she accused will deny it, and say she is lying.


----------



## Larry (Feb 25, 2018)

The officer would not be fired based on an accusation. The police would possibly make a public statement, commenting on the officer's long record of service, etc., but only in response to increased media scrutiny. It would not be police procedure to remove a detective from a case simply because a suspect accused the officer of a crime (as someone mentioned, this probably happens often.)


----------



## Plasticweld (Feb 25, 2018)

You have made a huge mistake in your assumptions.  The police thrive in a culture of lies.  Any time they interview some one it involves lying to whoever they talk to about what they know.  They lie all the time to gain evidence and it is not only completely legal, it is encouraged.

https://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/6909121-Case-law-on-police-deception/

Second being a skilled liar is something that is admired not frowned on. 

Third, police assume everyone is always lying to them...just ask any cop.

Fourth, Do you know how to tell a cop is lying....he is moving his mouth. 

I have Family and friends in law enforcement... The stories they tell make it impossible to almost ever like a cop, that is either not family or not a long time friend.


----------



## ironpony (Feb 25, 2018)

Okay thanks.  What is the mistake I made though exactly?  Are you saying the police would have seen it coming, even if the liar's first time talking about it, is in court?

But there have been cases in real life where the police were lied to and were actually fooled.  There was one real case in my research, where a person was a witness to a murder, told the police who the killer was, and the police bought it, went out and arrested that person, who was convicted, and then years later, it turned out that the witness was the actual killer, and the person he accused of the murder, had nothing to do with it.

Yet the police were actually fooled by this liar and his plan worked for a few years.  So it seems the police have been fooled by lies before.


----------



## NathanielleC (Feb 25, 2018)

Yes. Police have been fooled by liars. So have juries. Innocent people have been exonerated days after the lethal injection.

People have gotten food poisoning eating at a McDonalds. That doesn't mean that every single McDonald's is going to make someone sick.

But the question you specifically asked is if the officer would be fired over the accusation or face any kind of repercussion at all. The answer is not very likely has been illustrated for you several times in the answers given. Once again, however, you seem to want the people replying to your questions to think of every possible instance in which they could be right or wrong. But it is up to you, as always, to write the story and figure those details out yourself.


----------



## ironpony (Feb 25, 2018)

Oh okay thanks, I guess I was just worried that he might be fired out of damage control.  I can write it so that he's not, but would he have to be taken off the case, or could he stay on even with such an accusation against him?  Basically the judge throws the case out in my story, cause they needed the cop's testimony to tie pieces of the puzzle together, but now that he is accused of threatening a witness with extortion, his testimony is not tainted, and the judge has to dismiss the case.

So with that in mind, would he still be allowed on the case, as long as he can come up with something new later, that is separate from the lying witness?


----------



## hardlyboiledauthor (Feb 27, 2018)

I agree with the first comment by Bloggsworth. I think they would first investigate the truth of the claim. It might be a great way to inflate the balloon of dramatic tension in your scenes to keep this accused officer involved in the case. If the officer is taken off the case, what type of tension would be in the court room if they show up in court afterwards? Or what is it like if they see the witness outside of the courtroom? You probably have a bunch of scenarios you're playing with already. There's so many options to work with here. Good luck!


----------



## ironpony (Feb 28, 2018)

When you say what is it like when they see the witness outside of the courtroom, I don't quite follow.  Did you have something in mind?


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Feb 28, 2018)

Bloggsworth is correct: They would add that detail to the investigation, and partition the officer from the investigation until it was determined that he was clean. This would not be so much left up to the police, but would be insisted upon by the prosecutor. Trials are hugely expensive things, and no DA would allow their case to be sidetracked by a dirty cop.  All of these things are required by law to be revealed during the discovery phase of the trial, so it's not something that they could legally cover up.

But no, until they found something concrete in the investigation, the officer would not be fired or disciplined, and at no time would the department be able to comment upon it because of both the pending investigation, as well as HR policy.


----------



## ironpony (Mar 3, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Bloggsworth is correct: They would add that detail to the investigation, and partition the officer from the investigation until it was determined that he was clean. This would not be so much left up to the police, but would be insisted upon by the prosecutor. Trials are hugely expensive things, and no DA would allow their case to be sidetracked by a dirty cop.  All of these things are required by law to be revealed during the discovery phase of the trial, so it's not something that they could legally cover up.
> 
> But no, until they found something concrete in the investigation, the officer would not be fired or disciplined, and at no time would the department be able to comment upon it because of both the pending investigation, as well as HR policy.



Okay thanks.  Well it's not a trial right now, it's a preliminary hearing to see if there is enough evidence to go to trial.  So it's discovery pretty much.

As for finding out if the cop is clean, it's just his word against hers, so would they say, we don't know who's word to believe, so I guess therefore cop is clean?  But the case would still be thrown out of court by the judge, since it's a problem for one of the witnesses to accuse the cop of threatening her and illegally blackmailing her.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Mar 3, 2018)

"Okay thanks. Well it's not a trial right now, it's a preliminary hearing to see if there is enough evidence to go to trial. So it's discovery pretty much."

That actually sounds like a Grand Jury.  These can be secret or public, but essentially they have a jury decide if there is enough evidence to warrant a trial.  They will vote for either a True-bill, or no-bill.

The discovery phase is actually part of the pretrial mechanisms.  Essentially all evidence is admitted and pooled.  Contrary to what we see on TV, there are NO surprises in a courtroom, no prosecutors pulling evidence out of their pocket and winning the day.  If the item was not admitted during the Discovery Phase then it must be submitted before it can even be mentioned.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Mar 3, 2018)

I've testified in one grand jury, and sat through a few more.  Trials are actually quite boring.


----------



## ironpony (Mar 4, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> That actually sounds like a Grand Jury.  These can be secret or public, but essentially they have a jury decide if there is enough evidence to warrant a trial.  They will vote for either a True-bill, or no-bill.
> 
> The discovery phase is actually part of the pretrial mechanisms.  Essentially all evidence is admitted and pooled.  Contrary to what we see on TV, there are NO surprises in a courtroom, no prosecutors pulling evidence out of their pocket and winning the day.  If the item was not admitted during the Discovery Phase then it must be submitted before it can even be mentioned.



Oh okay thanks, but I thought that they go over the evidence, and the defense challenges it a preliminary hearing, which comes after a grand jury, according to this site:

https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/criminal-justice/defendants-rights/the-pretrial-process

Unless the site is incorrect on that?

Basically in my story, after the accused is indicted on charges, their will come point before the trial where the prosecutor will say, "oh crap, I can't go to trial because one of the witnesses, has tainted the investigating officer's testimony", and the defense attorney will be the one to point it out to the judge, to get the case dropped.  So at what stage would this occur, if not the grand jury?

However, let's say the site I posted is correct, and it would therefore, occur in a preliminary hearing, right? In a preliminary hearing, are surprises allowed?  It says on the site that discovery comes after the preliminary hearing, where the prosecution and defense disclose all their evidence to each other.

So in a preliminary hearing, does that mean that surprises are allowed, and the defense can pull evidence out of his pocket at the hearing to get the case thrown out?


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Mar 5, 2018)

"and the defense challenges it a preliminary hearing, which comes *after* a grand jury,"

Grand jury comes first, to determine if there will be a trial at all.
Discovery is part of the pre-trial machinations, after grand jury, but before jury selection.


----------



## ironpony (Mar 5, 2018)

Okay thanks.  But if the defense has a piece of evidence that will get the case thrown out, they would present it at the preliminary hearing, right?


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Mar 5, 2018)

They can move for a dismissal any time they want, but that don't mean the judge will agree.
During discovery phase is when they can add-omit evidence, and both sides fight over what is included.  I believe this is also where they determine who will be allowed to testify (but I could be wrong.)

The term 'preliminary hearing' covers a lot of ground, and its use may vary from state to state.  For best results you should study the courts in the state where the story will take place.  You may find some interesting nuggets that are germane only to that state.


----------



## ironpony (Mar 5, 2018)

Okay thanks.  I haven't decided where the story is to take place though.  I might have it take place in an unnamed city like some thrillers do, so what should I do then for a legal setting.  I was told I by a couple of people that I should have it set in a courtroom since the courtroom is more exciting, then one lawyer calling another over the phone or something like that.  It's just more exciting to have a courtroom face off.

But I can't have it be a trial, cause no surprises are allowed, and the prosecutor would have seen this coming if it were a trial.  So I need to have it be some sort of hearing before a trial, where the defense will get one witness to taint another, and get the case dismissed and the judge will decide to dismiss it.  But can this take place in a courtroom for dramatic license, and still make sense, when it's not a trial?

Plus I thought that setting it during a preliminary hearing would be better since surprises are allowed then, right, or are they not?


----------

