PEOPLE OF INTEREST

PERSON OF INTEREST

For years federal agencies have worked diligently to improve the progress of gathering information on individual citizens. Information gathering has always been a government priority. However, Citizens rights advocates, state and federal laws pertaining to constitutional rights have forbid have plagued the government agency’s efforts to obtain information. The government could not just demand that citizens just hand over their personal information without just cause or a warrant.

However, 9/11 changed the course of how the American Citizen views how law enforcement obtains and maintains citizens’ personal information. The federal government was taken by surprise as an attack on  American soil against the American people was planned and carried out. The surprise did not come from the US Government not knowing that suspicious activity was afoot or imminent, but the delay in the reaction time to defend ourselves against it. 

The strategic bombing of the twin towers in New York and the airstrike on the Defense Department brought a halt to American civil liberties. It became very clear that safety and security were more important. The words “People of Interest” became very popular as Law Enforcement used it often to describe people they sought in criminal matters that they wanted to interview instead of calling them a material witness or subject in an investigation.

MATERIAL WITNESS

A person who apparently has information about the subject matter of a lawsuit or criminal prosecution which is significant enough to affect the outcome of the case or trial. Thus, the court must make every reasonable effort to allow such a witness to testify, including a continuance (delay in a trial) to accommodate him/her if late or temporarily unavailable.

IMMATERIAL WITNESS

Commonly heard objections to introducing evidence in a trial on the ground that it had nothing substantial to do with the case or any issue in the case. It can also apply to any matter (such as an argument or complaint) in a lawsuit which has no bearing on the issues to be decided in a trial. The public is often surprised at what is immaterial, such as references to a person’s character or bad deeds in other situations. 

HOSTILE WITNESS

A “adverse witness” in a trial who is found by the judge to be hostile (adverse) to the position of the party whose attorney is questioning the witness, even though the attorney called the witness to testify on behalf of his/her client. When the attorney calling the witness finds that the answers are contrary to the legal position of his/her client or the witness becomes openly antagonistic, the attorney may request the judge to declare the witness to be “hostile” or “adverse.” If the judge declares the witness to be hostile (i.e. adverse), the attorney may ask “leading” questions which suggest answers or are challenging to the testimony just as on cross examination of a witness who has testified for the opposition.

WITNESS

A person who testifies under oath in a trial (or a deposition which may be used in a trial if the witness is not available) with first-hand or expert evidence useful in a lawsuit. A party to the lawsuit (plaintiff or defendant) may be a witness. 2) n. a person who sees an event. 3) n. a person who observes the signing of a document like a will or a contract and signs as a witness on the document attesting that the document was signed in the presence of the witness. 4) v. to sign a document verifying that he/she observed the execution of the document such as a will.

CITIZEN

 Person who by place of birth, nationality of one or both parents, or by going through the naturalization process has sworn loyalty to a nation. The United States has traditionally taken the position that an American citizen is subject to losing his/her citizenship if he/she commits acts showing loyalty to another country, including serving in armed forces potentially unfriendly to the United States, or voting in a foreign country. However, if the foreign nation recognizes dual citizenship (Canada, Israel, and Ireland are common examples) the U.S. will overlook this duality of nationalities.

CREDIBLE WITNESS

a witness whose testimony is more than likely to be true based on his/her experience, knowledge, training and appearance of honesty and forthrightness, as well as common human experience. This is subjective in that the trier of fact (judge or jury) may be influenced by the demeanor of the witness or other factors.

EXPERT WITNESS

a person who is a specialist in a subject, often technical, who may present his/her expert opinion without having been a witness to any occurrence relating to the lawsuit or criminal case. It is an exception to the rule against giving an opinion in trial, provided that the expert is qualified by evidence of his/her expertise, training and special knowledge. If the expertise is challenged, the attorney for the party calling the “expert” must make a showing of the necessary background through questions in court, and the trial judge has discretion to qualify the witness or rule he/she is not an expert, or is an expert on limited subjects. Experts are usually paid handsomely for their services and may be asked by the opposition the amount they are receiving for their work on the case. In most jurisdictions, both sides must exchange the names and addresses of proposed experts to allow pre-trial depositions.