45°
O’Toole, flanked by Gov. Christie (far left) and State Sen. President Sweeney
O‘Toole submitted an amendment at Thursday’s Judiciary Committee meeting in Trenton expanding a pending resolution to allow judges and jurors to hear testimony outside of a courtroom from witnesses and victims who have been threatened by their spouses, government officials or drug dealers.
The goal of the original measure, submitted earlier this year by state Sen. Paul Sarlo and Jeff Van Drew, is to keep innocents from having to testify in open court — and, in doing so, better safeguard them from retaliation in return for their cooperation.
However, O’Toole says resolution SJR-25, as currently drafted, omits a group of people who may need it most.
“SJR-25, while well-intentioned, does not go far enough, and inexplicably would allow accused criminals to benefit from intimidating a witness in trials of political corruption, domestic violence, assault, or serious drug offenses,” he said. “This is unacceptable, particularly given New Jersey’s torrid history of corruption.”
His proposal is simple: “It closes these loopholes and brings New Jersey’s rules of evidence in line with the federal courts, the vast majority of other states, and the New Jersey Supreme Court’s publicly stated desires,” said O’Toole, who represents Essex and parts of Bergen and Passaic counties.
Indeed, it’s been a long time coming. Law and justice officials, legislators, even the justices have insisted for years on finding a way to keep witnesses and victims in New Jersey from becoming “scared silent.”
Eliminating, or at least reducing, the “snitches get stitches” fear statewide would definitely put more lawbreakers behind bars. However, the threat has become so prevalent, Deputy Attorney General Daniel Bornstein told the Supremes during a hearing last year, that “entire communities are cowed into silence.”
The U.S. Supreme Court allows out-of-court statements to be heard under the “forfeiture-by-wrongdoing” rule, through which defendants forfeit their Sixth Amendment right to confront a state’s witness if it can be proven that they wrongfully caused the absence of that witness. New Jersey’s rules of evidence don’t include a similar provision.
Newark detectives said a woman whose boyfriend was on trial for murder threatened to kill her if she talked to the police. Taking the stand in his trial two years ago — with him sitting at the defense table a short distance from her — she recanted.
The defendant’s lawyer himself, Paul Begrin, has since been charged with several counts of intimidating witnesses, among other crimes. (See: More charges against former prosecutor turned pimp lawyer)
Among national examples of why this amendment is necessary: A Baltimore woman who was killed — along with her husband and five children — when someone firebombed her house after she told police of crimes being committed in her neighborhood. A wheelchair-bound Phoenix man was tortured for days and then killed by someone he testified against, and a Florida man was doused in rubbing alcohol and set afire by a crew that shouted: “He’s a snitch!”
Still, it’s the private threats that are clearly the most effective in protecting thugs, public weasels and other assorted low life — the very types that O’Toole wants to protect witnesses and victims from.
A few years ago, the mother of a reputed Boston gang member came to court with a group of supporters all wearing “Stop Snitching” t-shirts during her son’s trial for shooting and killing a 10-year-old girl. Another judge succeeded in banning the shirts from all city courthouses, calling them clear witness intimidation.
In Pittsburgh, a man scheduled to testify against three men charged with planning to kill him came to court instead in a “Stop Snitching” shift and clammed up. Prosecutors had no choice but to drop the charges.
Street criminals in Baltimore were the first to begin publicly threatening witnesses, launching a “Stop Snitching” campaign of intimidation six years ago that included t-shirts, a widely-circulated DVD that threatened violence against would-be informants (and featured, of all people, future NBA star Carmelo Anthony), and hip-hop songs that centered on the theme.
The phenomenon quickly spread across the globe: There are few cities now where you don’t see someone wearing the familiar black t-shirt with the reworded STOP sign on it — or some variation on the scheme.
In a more infamous moment, rapper Cam’ron told Anderson Cooper on “60 Minutes” that he wouldn’t tell police if he discovered a serial killer living next door. Instead, he said, “I would probably move.”
Cam’ron himself was shot once but refused to say by whom, claiming it would hurt record sales and violate his “code of ethics.”
The threat has become thoroughly ingrained in an already fearful urban culture, Dr. Richard Frei, an associate professor of psychology, wrote in a report earlier this year to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs.
When National Football League Commissioner Roger Goodell recently urged players to tell medical personnel if they thought a teammate had suffered a concussion, the professor wrote, Washington Redskins fullback Mike Sellers’ responded: “We ain’t no snitches over here!”
I’m not ordinarily in the business of touting proposals before they’ve even made it out of committee — much less one that hasn’t been introduced yet.
But O’Toole’s proposed amendment is aimed directly at the public good, and it deserves support from every corner of the state. And by that I mean lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, Attorney General Paula Dow, State Police Supt. Col. Rick Fuentes, Gov. Christie, all 21 prosecutors, all police chiefs, the ACLU and the everyday citizens of New Jersey.
Our worth as a society is measured by our compassion toward the weakest among us. This proposal is a simple — and just — way of protecting the innocent while giving prosecutors a valuable tool to make sure the guilty don’t go free.
Click here to follow Daily Voice Paterson and receive free news updates.
