Judicial Gatekeeping Of Police-Generated Witness Testimony Summary

The article entitled, “Judicial gatekeeping of police-generated witness testimony” by Sandra Guerra Thompson is a synopsis of how the current judicial system works in regards to police-generated testimony. Specifically, the testimonies included are witness testimony, eyewitness identification testimony, police offer testimony about defendant confession, and a police informant’s testimony regarding a defendant’s incriminating statements.
Guerra argues that these types of testimonies and evidence can be unreliable and persuasive towards the side of the prosecutor in cases of stranger against stranger criminal cases. The article consists of an introduction, the “Unreliability Conundrum” (police discretion is sometimes unreliable), the support

I can see that there are both pros and cons to pre-screening these types of evidence and testimonies on a pre-trial basis. Pros include: more reliable witnesses, better juror decisions and discretion, police being more neutral and working for the court as opposed to the prosecutor, fewer wrongly accused individuals, less pressure on the accused who are not guilty, fewer suspects from incriminating statements, fewer false informants who are given incentives to provide witness testimony, and fewer cases of police intimidation.
Although the argument is heavily for the pre-screening of evidence, Guerra does support her case with an ample amount of examples and cases where police successfully manipulate informants or incentivize them to provide the answers they desire. I think this is a valid point and although police may voluntarily fight to protect and serve, I do believe it is legitimate to argue that they also involuntarily root for the outcome of the prosecutor in heinous crimes of

I do personally believe this may cause: more loading of the court system, more juror discretion that will lead to longer trial consensus and sentencing because they cannot come to a unanimous decision, and also the fact that some good reliable witnesses may be missed out on if evidence is required with police testimony.
Other strong points to consider that were given were that: vulnerability and pressure on suspects increases the likelihood of a false confession, good DNA studies show about 30 to 40% false confessions in youths and those with mental illness or those who are heavily medicated, and police informants are not always background checked and prosecutors do not always know about their legitimacy. All are strong arguments for the presence of pre-trial screening.
I think most states (some already have) will eventually adopt more screening of evidence and police testimony into their pre-trial procedures because more groups such as the Innocence Project and the American Bar Association are calling for DNA exonerations and reform. The more awareness and states that adopt these principles, the faster reform will