Characterizing someone based solely on their choice of clothing says more about you than it does them. This is especially true when talking about police officers who dress for work in a distinct, identifying uniform prescribed, designed, and mandated by the authority who employs them. The uniform defines the profession, not the person wearing it.

In today’s episode Bill and Jordan begin with general thoughts and comments about police officers and their responsibilities. Bill addresses situational awareness and police training designed to teach an officer how and when to adapt and adjust to differing circumstances that arise with little or no expectation, or understanding. They discuss the importance of preparedness and readiness and how personal encounters often turn from calm to violent without notice. Their comments explain why an officer cannot be defined or separated in simple terms such as warrior or guardian. The profession demands a necessary blend of both. Bill explains how officers continue to grow and improve as they develop and hone their people skills in both the classroom and the arena of everyday real life.

Transitioning into a conversation about the legal system, Bill talks about the operational parameters established by caselaw, statute law, the rules of evidence and court and criminal procedure. In short, a police officer responding to a call for help is expected to arrive safely, render medical aid, identify, and protect the crime scene(s), locate witnesses and possibly make an arrest all the while understanding and conforming to the legal rules for each task while operating in the heat and tension of the moment with no time-outs to stop and think through what they are called to do.

Have you ever considered or been curious about the substantial differences in the standard of proof in a criminal vs. civil court action? Why does one require the heavier burden of proof of “beyond a reasonable doubt” and the other simply a finding of a “preponderance of the evidence”? Likewise, why are the rules for the admission of evidence in a criminal trial stricter than they are in a civil action? In this episode Bill Powers talks about the distinctions between the two and explains the judicial reasoning behind them.

Jordan and Bill continue to explain the procedural groundwork that applies in all criminal cases by sorting through the collection of individual rights afforded to all people through the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Finally, Bill provides some insight into the Rules of Evidence and how they guide the judge and the attorney’s as to what is admissible for presentation to a jury and what is not.

This week’s episode is the first in an all-encompassing series of conversations about criminal investigations and criminal court proceedings. The information provided throughout the series will be thorough, exhaustive, and accurate. Each episode will follow the progress of criminal cases from the reported criminal act through a police investigation, into the criminal court system and end with a jury verdict and the potential appellate reviews. These discussions are honest, accurate and long overdue!

It becomes more evident every day that much of the information spread through the so-called court of public opinion is at best inaccurate and oftentimes purposefully distorted with half-truths and innuendo. Too often the information is not substantiated but is still allowed to go unchecked or unverified and is presented as factual, and subsequently confirmed to be true through both mainstream and social media platforms.

The result of the series will be an extensive audio reference guide that will serve as a primer on criminal investigations and legal procedure. It is cost free and available to anyone who wishes to listen and learn from a knowledgeable professional with more than fifty years of experience in the law enforcement and legal arenas.

This first installment in the series opens with a short overview and explanation of why police take a slow and methodical approach to documenting a reported crime scene and at the same time protecting and preserving the area for the recovery of potential evidence. As an investigation moves forward, decisions must be made on several fronts. For example, is there probable cause to search areas of concern? Is there a need for a search warrant issued by a court, or can the police legally proceed without one? Similarly, questions arise about probable cause to detain and/or arrest a person of interest. These are fundamental but crucial concerns in the everyday work of a police investigator. Even a minor mistake may eliminate the use of crucial and damning information at a defendant’s trial.

The encouragement and allowance of peaceful protest and free speech is a cornerstone of the United States Constitution and is solidified in the First Amendment. Our nation was created from political dispute with England, and angry protests and fiery speeches energized the rebellion. Now, almost 250 years later, political disputes, speeches and demonstrations are once again front and center.

Like all freedoms, there are rules and parameters to be followed and require close judicial scrutiny. Every demonstration and/or speech has unique characteristics, and the behavior of the crowd and the speakers must conform to the established rules or result in sanctions or at times arrest.

In this episode, Bill and Jordan discuss the significance of the First Amendment and how historic court rulings protect the rights of groups and individuals but also balance them against the rights of all citizens. For example, they forbid speech that threatens violence or incites imminent violence or destruction of property (Clear and Present Danger speech). Similarly, they set limits on the right to demonstrate by allowing government entities to set “time, place and manner” restrictions, but they also tell government officials that their decisions must be “content neutral” and can’t favor one group over another because of their beliefs and ideology.

This episode concludes the discussion about the mass murder in Wakefield MA. on December 26, 2001. Previously, Jordan and Bill led listeners through an exhaustive examination of the investigative process and the legal challenges that led up to the trial of Commonwealth vs. Michael “Mucko” McDermott.

Today they focus on the trial in general and distinguish the differences in trial methods and process when a defendant offers a defense of Insanity. Listen as Bill describes the jury selection, the in-person viewing of three relevant locations and the prosecution’s trial testimony. Regardless of the defense, the prosecution still had to prove 7 counts of Murder in the First Degree beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defense of Insanity requires expert medical testimony that concludes with a medical opinion that the defendant was either substantially unable to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of their conduct, or, they were substantially unable to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law. The prosecution is given the opportunity to rebut the defense with testimony from their own medical experts.

The defense in this case differed dramatically from most because McDermott testified in an effort to convince the jurors of his insanity.

A defendant always has the presumption of innocence, and the prosecution always carries the burden of proving their case “beyond a reasonable doubt”. The burden is high because the stakes are as well. In a murder conviction, the defendant could lose their freedom for the remainder of their natural life. So, the preparation work leading up to a trial is enormous and needs to be on point.

In this week’s episode Jordan and Bill discuss the process leading up to a trial, beginning with the thoroughness and required documentation of every step of the investigation. They speak about the presentment of evidence to the Grand Jury and the criminal indictments and the move to Superior Court. They address the mandatory exchange of an often enormous amount of discovery materials between the prosecutor and the defense counsel and how that information becomes the basis of trial motions and hearings that determine what evidence and information will be allowed during the trial.

The murder case against Michael McDermott, while seemingly iron-clad, takes a turn when the defense advises the trial judge they intend to pursue the affirmative defense of Insanity. Now the prosecution must not only prove the murder charges against McDermott but also defend against the claim that he was “substantially unable to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of his conduct” and/or that he was “substantially unable to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law”.

We continue our review of the mass murder in Wakefield and focus on the importance of protecting the crime scene in the original condition, preserving it from additional contamination, before documenting and meticulously collecting all of the evidence for additional testing at the crime lab and beyond.

Bill addresses the strict judicial interpretations of the 4th Amendment regarding search and seizure, and he explains when, where and why a search warrant is required. He also mentions the limited exceptions to the requirement and how they factored into their decisions in this case. The process is tedious but necessary if the prosecution wants to later admit their findings at a trial.

We close with information about what was seized in the searches and how the information assisted in determining the next steps of the investigation.

Every death investigation presents unforeseen and unpredictable issues and complications. Each requires immediate, but considered decision making to restore order and safety, preserve the crime scene(s), summon the needed practitioners to assist, all the while keeping out those folks that aren’t central to the investigation. Only then can the next steps be determined and prioritized to move the investigation forward.

In this episode we return to the scene of the mass murder in Wakefield MA on 12/26/2000. Jordan and Bill discuss the difficulties of managing a large-scale investigation made more complicated by environmental and logistical issues that resulted in heartbreaking and less than optimum results.

The topic of crisis leadership is also examined as Bill speaks to the extraordinary personal and professional response to the tragedy by the executive team at Edgewater Technology. It is a story of care and compassion that should serve as a benchmark for all businesses to follow.