Expert: Dick Rogers - 3/25/2009

Question
QUESTION: Yet another mystery writer with some questions:  A police detective is in court to testify against a suspect.  Officially, all the officer did was interview the suspect twice, and the officer is there to testify about what the suspect said in those interviews.  However, the officer and the suspect have an extracurricular relationship (I know, it's NOT supposed to happen).  Is there anything that the officer might be routinely asked in testimony that would cause him to commit perjury regarding his relationship with the suspect?  (I used to have a job summarizing depositions, and I know there's a series of cautions that the attorney always gives at the beginning, but I'm not as familiar with courtroom procedure.)

Another issue:  Say the suspect confesses, pleads guilty to a misdemeanor, and gets probation.  After that's finished, the detective and the suspect encounter each other socially (they live in a small city).  Would there be an issue with their developing a relationship then?

Another small-city question.  The detective goes to interview, just for information and not as a witness, a person he's slightly acquainted with (spouse of a former teacher).  As they knew each other beforehand, would there be a problem with their continuing to see each other socially?

ANSWER: Paula, I am having some difficulty in answering your questions...probably because I can't imagine a detective being in a situation where he/she would be asking questions only of a suspect...does he/she have responsibility for the case?  Only detectives assigned to a specific case would be interviewing the suspect.  As to the second question, there would be an issue if the person was convicted...actually, even if he wasn't' convicted...generally, cops must divorce themselves from any social setting which can compromise their ability to function.  The third question relates to the first in that a detective interviewing someone "for information and not as a witness" would be highly unusual...for what purpose...if the case was not his case the detectives involved would not think highly of such a scenario. I am not sure this is of help to you.  Sorry.

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Sorry if I wasn't clear.  Yes, the detective is responsible for the case and interviewed the suspect during the investigation.  Eventually the suspect is arrested for the crime and there's a trial, and the detective is testifying at the trial.  If the defense attorney doesn't flat-out ask "Do you have a personal relationship with the suspect?", would the detective be perjuring himself (in the legal sense) by saying nothing in his testimony about the relationship?

As for the third question, maybe it'll help if I give some plot details.  A body is found on a site where there was an archeological dig.  A number of volunteers from a local historical society worked on the dig.  The detective on the case wants to obtain a list of the volunteers so he can see who had access to the site, so he asks someone at the historical society for the list.  Would there be a conflict if the person he asks is a prior acquaintance of his and someone that he anticipates seeing socially in the future?

Answer
Okay, I've got it.  But, there is still an issue here.  If the detective was assigned the case and from the get-go knew that a primary suspect was a friend of his, the best route would be to make this clear to the supervisor assigning the cases with the intent of having the case re-assigned.  Given, the scenario you present and the fact the detective obviously investigated the case, then it would be incumbent on the part of the D.A. to bring out the connection during the detectives testimony...this to preclude the possibility of the defense finding out on their own and using it to discredit the officer's testimony.  The detective would have to make it clear to the D.A. that he has had a social relationship with the suspect to keep himself free from any legal missteps.

Regarding question #3, there would be no problem that I can see in that before he gets into the "who" and "what" in the list of historical "diggers" there is no suggestion that the person supplying the list would possibly turn out to be a suspect in the killing.  There are situations in real life where a person cannot foresee that he/she might be involved with a case that also involves people they may know and even see socially. It is just that if such a thing happens that the officer conduct him/herself in a professional manner.  Hope this is of some use.