The prosecutor and the trial judge are on record saying this outcome will bring some form of finality for the victims’ families and allow them to begin to move forward with their lives. In this episode, we address the shortsightedness of imagining there is ever finality to a highly publicized case in either courts of law or the court of public opinion.

Bill explains that while Kohberger promised to never appeal the decision, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled a short seven years ago that the 6th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right to an appeal even where a defendant waived that right as part of his plea agreement. Ironically in that case, SCOTUS overruled the Idaho Supreme Court who had previously denied the defendant his right to appeal. Bill addresses several legal scenarios where an appeal(s) could still be possible, if not probable, for Kohberger.

We look ahead and discuss the increasing media intensity that has been present from the moment the four victims were discovered in their off-campus housing early on a Sunday morning. This was never a local story, but one that was featured on national and international news platforms from the gruesome beginning through Kohberger’s sentencing. Now that previously withheld information and documentation have been released and the people with direct and indirect involvement in the investigation and prosecution are free to speak to the media, the doors have opened wide to the legions of people who want to question, speculate, and opine about the entire process. Similarly, the “experts” are lining up to offer their presumptions and opinions. Books and magazine articles are being written, movies and documentaries are already in production, podcasts and blogs dedicated to True Crime and psycho killers are churning out new episodes daily. 

There is no chance or hope for finality to this story, and honestly there never was! The devastating and lasting impact this will have on the families and the Moscow community will play out over the coming years.

Idaho, like most states with a death penalty statute relies on a bi-furcated trial system where the juries are tasked with two distinctly different responsibilities; 1) Determine if the defendant is guilty of the criminal charges or not, and if guilty, 2) What is the appropriate punishment in that jurisdiction.

In all but two states with a death penalty statute, the jury delivers the final decision on sentencing, not the trial judge nor a panel of judges.

So, if a defendant chooses to waive their right to a jury trial and pleads guilty before a single justice, their maximum sentence is reduced to a life in prison.

Bill discusses how Massachusetts negated their death penalty statute in 1984 when their Supreme Judicial Court ruled the law unconstitutional because the majority believed the option of life or death to be coercive in nature and could sway an innocent defendant from their right to a fair trial because of a legitimate fear that if found guilty by a jury, they could be put to death.

We close the segment with a look at the federal laws regarding the death penalty, and highlight a few notorious cases.

Bring on the helicopters, cameras and bright lights that always come with intense national media attention. The subsequent intrusion, scrutiny, speculation and judgmental finger-pointing about the investigation, creates an unease and cynicism among the townspeople that makes for an explosive, distrustful environment.

Listen in as Bill and Jordan discuss the investigation into the mass murder in Moscow Idaho, and the successful, “under the radar” investigation that resulted in the arrest of Bryan Kohberger six weeks later at his home in Pennsylvania.

In this episode Bill discusses the two-prong test and gives examples of several situations that police confront with some regularity. For example, Is the potential evidence in plain view? Is all of a person’s land protected or are their limits? Is it in a common area where others have a right to be present? When trash is bagged for disposal, is it reasonable for the owner to expect that they retain privacy rights all the way to the transfer station?

Jordan and Bill end this episode by opening a wider discussion about the rules governing “Terry Stops” and pat frisks. Stay tuned!

The 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prevents government officials from conducting “unreasonable searches and seizures”. Under general circumstances, the laws of each state require there be a warrant, approved and signed by a judge or clerk of court, before any search and/or seizure of a person or their property can be performed.

In most prosecutions, searches and/or seizures that resulted in the gathering of critical pieces of evidence are a primary point of contention both in pre-trial hearings and during a criminal trial. In reviewing the pertinent circumstances that led to the recovery of evidence, the court first considers whether the defendant had an “expectant right of privacy” in the area that was searched? If it is determined they did, then the follow-up concern is whether there was a need for a search warrant, or could the prosecutor demonstrate that the search met an exception to the warrant requirement established through previously established caselaw? 

Bill closes out the episode with an explanation of the Exclusionary Rule created by the Supreme Court in the case of Mapp vs Ohio (1961). This landmark decision effectively prevents any ill-gotten evidence from being presented to a jury at trial.

In this episode Bill and Jordan delve into what is, what isn’t, and what may be accepted as evidence by a judge at trial. They talk about hearsay evidence, and why it is generally prohibited because of the Best Evidence Rule, but they also highlight a few of the legally recognized exceptions to the rule. They also address witness testimony and point out some of the considerations by both the prosecution and the defense in selecting the right people to present critical information at trial.

Listen in to the discussion, and, if you are left with questions or concerns about the episode, please address them in the comments section of www.powersonpolicing.com, and we will highlight and discuss them in our next episode.

Criminal investigations and prosecutions boil down to whether there is enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime or crimes were committed and the individual or people on trial committed or were somehow connected to the crimes. All of the information gathered during the investigation may be deemed critical to proving or disproving the criminal charges, but the judge, acting as the “gatekeeper” determines whether the pieces are relevant, have probative value and are obtained in a lawful manner? Bill explains the legal process that leads to the judge’s rulings.

Listen as Bill clarifies a few legal definitions regarding evidence and explains why and how the road from initial discovery to a presentation before a jury is long, winding, and arduous. The process is complex and before any judicial rulings are made, the information must first be vetted through many sources including, the Rules of Evidence, the Rules of the Court, the Rules of Criminal Procedure, criminal statutes and current caselaw. Literally, several thousand pages of collective information, much of which is in a constant stage of review and updating.

Nothing elevates a police officer’s blood pressure quicker than a radio call dispatching them to a potentially violent crime scene. Thoughts of a swift and safe arrival are quickly overridden with cares and concerns of what they may encounter on arrival, and how they may best deal with all of it. 

Listen as Bill and Jordan discuss a wide-ranging and endless list of potential scenarios and police and other first-responder actions. Bill details and explains the reasons for establishing early, but ever-changing priorities that range from medical care to crime scene preservation, and initial location of victims and witnesses. All reactionary, but with a constant focus on the legal considerations and protections that guide an investigation and allow it to move forward toward an arrest and prosecution.

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.

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.

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.  

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. 

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.

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”. 

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. 

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.

Some cases rely on direct evidence like the defendant’s fingerprints or DNA on the murder weapon or testimony from a surviving victim or eyewitness about their observations. Other cases are built in a circumstantial manner where there may be dozens of pieces of information that alone may prove little but taken together in their entirety can prove the case against the defendant “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

In this episode we begin a discussion about a mass murder in the town of Wakefield MA. where seven innocent people had their lives taken at the hands of an irrational co-worker. This case presents in a hybrid manner with direct evidence used to prove the murders, but circumstantial evidence and expert testimony necessary to push back and defeat a defense of Insanity.

Listen in to this conversation with Jordan, Bill and their guest, Jimmy Connolly, as they discuss the history of change from when they started out as detectives in the late 70’s and 80’s through today. Jimmy refers to it as transitioning from the days of the “leather footprint” to today’s digital imprint.” They address the importance and acceptance of DNA as evidence, but also speak about how DNA results have shed light on eyewitness identifications, resulting in major changes in police procedures to insure fairness and accuracy in witness identifications. They also discuss the introduction of audio-video taped statements in interrogations and how what initially appeared to be a negative has turned out to be very positive for the police and prosecutors. Similarly, they speak to the advantages of body and dash-cams as tools that often remove doubts with judges and juries about the events that police relied on to bring criminal charges. 

Bill and Jimmy rose in rank but stayed in their assignments in the detective unit. They discuss the transition from playing a subordinate role in a case to assuming the position of leader and decision-maker. As always, it is about what is best for the team and not necessarily the individual.

Bill, and our guests, are practitioners with decades of experience and most often first-hand knowledge of the cases they will discuss. They will define the investigative and legal process as well as the rational reasoning that goes into their decision-making. They will also explain how and why legal precedents and evidentiary rulings guide and control the flow of the cases from the very beginning. 

Our first guest is James (Jimmy) Connolly, a retired Major from the Massachusetts State Police, and the current Director of Public Safety at a large university in downtown Boston. During his diverse and lengthy career Jimmy spent more than 20 years as an investigator, supervisor of cases and unit commander in the Middlesex County District Attorney’s office in Cambridge, MA. Upon promotion to the rank of Major he was assigned as the Director of the State Crime Laboratory. Jimmy’s experience and assignments allow him to talk about case development from a few different perspectives.  

In many instances the witness interviews and evidence present in a simple, straight-forward manner and result in a quick arrest and prosecution. In other cases, the preliminary information and evidence may be lacking or in dispute, requiring a larger and more in-depth investigation. The bigger the challenge, the more rewarding when the case is solved, and results in a conviction. Listen as Bill explains the practical and legal process that is present in all investigations and why a holistic, overall team approach is needed to solve and prosecute a case. The burden always falls on the prosecution team to prove the case against the defendant “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Learn many of the ways that investigative teams approach and meet that legal obligation. 

Frank candidly discusses his views on policing and community engagement in both the past and the current environments. He notes how in retirement he is still passionate and concerned about the business and culture of law enforcement. However, his outlook and opinions are now more fully developed because for the first time they are formed from the standpoint of an outsider looking in and not the other way around. 

He notes that his concerns about the fractured relationships between our police and the communities they serve are primarily based on misunderstandings, mistruths, and a lack of rational discussion between all parties. With those concerns as a background, he set out to write a story that would not sugarcoat or slant the storyline toward one set of beliefs versus another. The result was “The Ride Along” , a truly eye-opening, thought-provoking and challenging exercise that will cause all readers to pause and consider and question their own thoughts and opinions. The book is co-authored by Colin Conway, an author and former colleague with Scalise on the Spokane, Washington Police Department.

Please consider purchasing these two books from the Frank Zafiro collections. You won’t be disappointed! Both are available on Amazon and other book selling platforms.

“The Ride Along” is true to the title. A veteran midnight police officer in Spokane Washington is assigned a ride-along passenger for the midnight shift. His “partner” is a member of the Police Reform Initiative (PRI) and, he believes, is an opponent and not a proponent of the city police force. The entire story takes place during one night and explores their response to radio calls and the personal interactions, and spirited dialogue that follows. The conversations are thought provoking from all views and ultimately, are a cause for soul-searching and difficult decision making.

“The Tattered Blue Line” is an anthology of fourteen short stories authored by folks who work in the criminal justice environment, but who have differing responsibilities. As a result, their writing may be fiction, but it evolves from their work experiences that allows them to present and explore points of view and implicit biases from several divergent angles. 

You can also reach Frank at his website: www.wrongplacewritecrime.com

In this episode, Paul discusses community policing as a philosophy and not a collection of protocols or checklists that are set in stone. He describes it as a way forward by building strong partnerships, to problem solve and improve quality of life in neighborhoods. He talks of the need for all community stakeholders to buy in to the effort and invest their time and resources to make it a long-term success effort. He suggests politicians, community spokespeople, business owners, religious leaders, as well as the courts, probation, and parole officers, all must have a seat at the table.

The conversation turns to training as Paul talks about the purpose of police academies. He says that if there is to be a serious methodology to educate and enlighten members of the department, and to create a healthy work environment, then the most knowledgeable and respected officers should serve as teachers and mentors and not disgruntled employees who are assigned there for punishment purposes. He also speaks about the need for officer wellness to sustain the physical and mental well-being of all officers. In efforts to recruit new candidates and retain the best officers, constructing long-term programs that are beneficial to the officers overall health and wellness are an essential component to any strategy.

We end by spending a few important moments to talk about his position at Salve Regina University and their efforts to create innovative programming that progresses from the classroom to the practical application of what they learned. He refers to it as “learning by doing” and has found it to be the best way to prepare students for success in criminal justice related professions. 

In any serious conversation about the best methods to generate a meaningful, collaborative effort between police and the communities they serve, Paul should be the featured speaker. His professional qualifications put him in the upper echelon of those who can truly say they have, and continue to, “Walk the Walk and Talk the Talk”.

Paul spent three decades working as a police officer on the streets of Boston. He began his career as a uniformed patrol officer, before transitioning to the detective branch. Over time, he was promoted through the ranks, with a final assignment as the Superintendent overseeing the Bureau of Professional Development, Training and Education. A strong believer that an educated police officer would be well positioned to advance through the ranks into positions of leadership, Paul earned his way to an undergraduate, graduate and doctorate degree. He has retired from active policing, but his career in public safety continues in on a new path, as a highly regarded college professor with a specific focus on law enforcement and related criminal justice disciplines.

 Listen as he talks about his role in creating the highly successful Youth Violence Task Force in Boston in the early 1990’s. and the successful methods they developed and employed to combat rapidly growing street crime, a crack cocaine epidemic and raging gang warfare. 

It is time we brought knowledgeable, educated, street smart police officers like Paul Joyce back into any significant discussion about modern policing efforts and the need to engage with the communities they are sworn to protect. After listening to this episode, I’m sure you will agree.

Kristen talks about the development of leadership in the police service, and why it is now an important component of all levels of training. We talk about the essential qualities of a leader and the need to show respect and build trust with others if you expect them to follow your lead. A chief or supervisor should not hide their vulnerabilities in areas where they are deficient or unqualified. They should seek the help of subject-matter experts to support and aid in the pursuit of the Department’s mission(s). 

Listen as the conversation segues from theoretical to real-world situations. Kristen candidly describes three events that not only tested her leadership but left indelible marks on both her career and life. The first occurred in 2019 when a shooter opened fire on co-workers, killing five and, in the ambush that followed, five responding officers were wounded. The following year COVID struck, virtually shutting down everything in her city, except police operations. She speaks to the unified effort of all Department members and their willingness to adapt and adjust to ensure that the safety and protection of all Aurora’s residents came first. The last, and perhaps most debilitating crisis, was the unexpected need to confront the rioting, looting and the loss of public trust in the aftermath of the George Floyd killing in Minneapolis, more than four hundred miles away. As Kristen succinctly puts it, “We went from heroes to zeroes in less than two years” and did nothing wrong. 

Our episode concludes with Kristen reflecting on her retirement and relocation to Florida. In her newly found “free time” she has turned to writing essays. This prompted her desire to write a book about her life and the lessons she’s learned about leadership along the way. Her important life messages shared in print and in podcasts such as this one, have led to speaking engagements about leadership and consultant opportunities with other police departments.

Listen as she talks about growing up in Aurora, the daughter of a police officer, and why, from the time she was six, she had only one goal., to follow in her father’s footsteps.

Kristen discusses her career and the personal and professional challenges she faced, and how she worked through them. She also addresses the juxtaposition of being a woman, a police officer, and a leader and how she has had to judiciously deal with questions, comments, and biases, both pro and con, about women as leaders in a police environment. She speaks to character, competency and experience as the critical and defining attributes of an effective leader. 

To learn more about Kristen, go to her website: www.kristenziman.com where you can also access information about her podcast “The Hollow Bunny”, and her book “Re-Imagining Blue: Thoughts on Life, Leadership and a New Way Forward in Policing”

Listen and learn as Bill talks about his experiences as a police chief at a college in Boston and how collaborative efforts, both internal and external led to trust and relationship building that in turn provided a safer working and living environment for students, administrators, faculty and the residential and business communities bordering the school.

Regarding the need or desire for greater diversity in policing, we talk about the difficulties in recruiting potential candidates in communities where the residents have been led to believe that the police are their enemy. 

Cunningham speaks to the problems that result when a community lowers basic entry level requirements as a recruitment tool. 

We discuss the philosophy of community policing and the need for all stakeholders to come together and work as one to not only solve crime issues, but to create safer environments for all.

In our current environment, police departments and their officers find themselves constantly on the defense and, in a position where the onus is on THEM to regain and improve relationships with their communities. It is a question of professional survival and no easy task. It is often a one-sided narrative shaped by elected politicians, special interest groups and sections of the media. If policing is to survive and rebuild trust and acceptance, it has to re-engage with the community. But for that to happen, everyone has to have a voice and more importantly has to willingly engage in dialogue, sincerely listen to all that is being said by all parties, adapting and adjusting when and where necessary.

This episode will start the conversation. Your input will power it.

This is the first of what promises to be an epic series of podcasts designed to engage, enlighten, and educate listeners to the world of law enforcement and beyond. Our focus will be multi-dimensional and will cover current issues involving the criminal justice system as a whole, with an emphasis on criminal and courtroom procedures, as well as the forensic sciences. On the lighter side, we will speak with authors of both fiction and non-fiction mysteries based on their experiences in the criminal justice arena. 

These episodes will not be one-minute soundbites from news readers, or factually deficient dialogue generated by special interest groups with an anti-government, anti-police agenda. Rather, they will be in-depth explorations from the knowledge base and perspective of experienced professionals who represent many sides of an argument.

I have learned that it is easy to express an opinion when you don’t know what you are talking about or choose to ignore factual truths. Our podcasts will feature enlightened discussions that provoke thought. What you hear may not change your opinions, but you are guaranteed to have a deeper, more inclusive understanding of the issue. Truth matters, now and forever.