CPD detectives busy with local trials
The high amount of trial summons does not indicate crime trend.
Published Dec. 8, 2009
A high number of Columbia Police Department detectives have been summoned to testify in local jury trials recently. CPD spokeswoman Jessie Haden said detectives and officers have frequently been called to court, but the number of trials is not indicative of a crime trend.
"The jury trials are the least likely scenario but they are high profile cases so they get a lot of attention," Haden said. "The trials use a lot of CPD resources."
Haden also said CPD has been involved with a few robbery trials and the occasional homicide case. Some of the recent high profile cases include the Grady Dortch trial and last week's Horace Johnson trial.
"Put all those together and that makes a busy fall," Haden said.
Boone County Prosecutor Daniel Knight said the prosecutor's office has had six murder trials this year, and five were tried in a 90-day time period.
"I am positive that no other time in my 17 years have we tried five in a 90-day time period," Knight said.
Haden said forewarnings of when officers will be summoned to court fluctuate depending on the trial. For homicide trials, officers know months in advance when they're going to testify. In other cases, officers will receive a summons to be in court just days away, Haden said.
CPD Detective John Short said if there's a jury trial, a lot of time is spent preparing to be summoned to court.
"We have to manage our time," Short said.
Knight said there's also a tremendous amount of preparation that goes into the cases and with the amount of high profile cases, it can put stress on the prosecutor's office.
"It has been a tough stretch but we've made it through pretty well," Knight said.
The police department can also be chaotic when detectives and officers are getting subpoenaed to court. Short said when there is a homicide or robbery trial, at least five detectives can be summoned to testify.
"The crew in here gets involved with almost every homicide trial," Short said. "There are times when it does have an effect on how we do business."
Officers should review the case report because they might not remember everything, Haden said. Other preparations, like retrieving evidence from the property room in a timely fashion, are also encouraged.
"Good report writing is very important," she said.
Short said the prosecutor's office is pretty good in letting CPD officers know when they're going to be testifying. If prosecutors aren't sure when officers will be needed, they will put them on standby.
"We work closely with the prosecutor's office," Short said. "And you bet, we like to see them win."
Knight said the prosecutor's office has an excellent working relationship with CPD and all Boone County law enforcement agencies.
"It's very important that we are able to communicate about any issues we might have," Knight said. "We're very fortunate to have that relationship with CPD."
Haden said the prosecutor's office is very prudent and conservative in preparing their cases.
"We know in our hearts that if they're taking a homicide suspect to trial, they've done their homework and they've prepared a very good case," Haden said.
Short said dealing with trials and working on investigations can be stressful, especially with a lack of sleep. Because of the nature of some of the trials, Short said they try very hard not to let investigations or the trials affect them emotionally.
"We really try not to make this stuff personal," Short said. "It does not involve you as a person, it's your job. Depending on the type of victimization that occurs, it can affect you."
Comments (2)
3:43 p.m., March 12, 2010
Jan Davis said:
Mr Short: I am again writing you regarding the handling of the prosecution and the detectives during the Ryan Ferguson Case. Do you not have any comment on any of the handling of that case? Are detective not trained at all to al least recognize mental illness? I have a reporter that would like to contact you now that he has finished reading all the details of the case. It was said of mentioned at one point that the then prosecutor Kevin Crane had "never heard of a false confession"? Is that true, and do you also state that in your years and expertise in law enforcement would have the public believe you also had never heard of a false confession? People all over the country are looking at this case, and the way is was handled, in my opinion mishandled, and the public would like a response from you. Chuck Erickson was and is mentally ill and the majority of the public, probably 1 out of a thousand is curious as to why you or any members of your team didn't recognize that and at the very least have him evaluated by a professional dealing with mental illness. Another question we put to you sir, is when Ryan never wavered from his testimony and never changed his story, why you wouldn't accept his answers. He repeatedly told you he wasn't at the scene and was not involved in the crime and you would not take his answer. Why not? The constitutional rights of an individual being suspceted and interrogated for a crime is really clear, "innocent until proven guilty", reasonable doubt, etc. Would you answer some questions by a reporter? Thank You Jan Davis






11:11 p.m., March 7, 2010
Jan Davis said:
Detective Short, I understand you were one of the investigators involved with the interrogation and trial of Ryan Ferguson, and Charles Chuck Erickson. Are law enforcement not trained in any way to recognize mental illness? I am curious as to why Chuck Erickson was allowed to be interrogated witout a menatl evaluation, as many people that have followed and read the story agree that he suffer from Schizophrenia. He actually thought he may have been involved in this crime, based on a dream and what he read in the paper. The rest of the information was spoon-fed to him by the entire investigation team, including but not limited to yourself. I am curious as to if you did not recognize the mental illness, when he clearly stated he "may be flipping out or something", you didn't at least question if you had a mentally unstable young man on your hands. Do you have any comments on why you didn't seek mental help for him, and why you agreed to supply him with the information, rather than he supply it to you. He clearly could not give you the information, as he was not there, did it not bother you or any of the team to realize you were having to tell him the answers? Do you or any of the other investigators have any comments you would like to make. The general public is outraged when they see the taped interviews and the interrogations.