Witness Protection for State Trials: Should the Federal Government Get Involved?

There are some events that scar a community so deeply that they influence elections and spur legal changes. In Maryland, one of those events was the firebombing of the Dawson family home in East Baltimore. In an attempt to prevent the Dawsons from "snitching" about the illegal activities going on in their neighborhood, drug dealers murdered a mother, a father, and their five young children in a fiery blaze.

The Dawson family had been encouraged to report criminal activity as part of Baltimore City's "Believe" campaign, but once they cooperated with the police, Maryland's law enforcement failed to safeguard their lives. Though the incident occurred in 2002, the headlines continue due to lawsuits and persistent guilt by state officials even though they were not held to be liable.

Since then, other witness intimidation incidents have helped spur a movement to protect those who help enforce our laws by way of giving information or testimony. Maryland passed one of the toughest laws in the country, making witness intimidation a felony carrying with it up to 20 years in prison. A number of other witness protection reforms were floated around Annapolis during the gubernatorial race, but those generally included changing the rules of evidence so as to allow hearsay exceptions for statements made by witnesses whose testimony was prevented by the wrongdoing of the defendant. Although similar exceptions are sometimes made in federal court, they raise concerns about the constitutional right of defendants to confront their accusers. One proposal by State's Attorney Pat Jessamy even went so far as to allow the stories of unavailable witnesses admissible in court even if they'd never made a written or sworn statement.