Cold-Case Christianity

by J. Warner Wallace

  I’m alarmed sometimes when I hear Christians make inaccurate statements related to the nature of evidence. When discussing evidence with skeptics, we don’t need to concede that a particular fact related to the Christian worldview is not a piece of evidence simply because it is not a piece of direct evidence. Even though a particular fact may not have the individual power to prove our case in its entirety, it is no less valid as we assemble the evidence. When we treat circumstantial evidence as though it is not evidence at all, we do ourselves a disservice as ambassadors for the Christian worldview. Circumstantial evidence is powerful if it is properly understood. When defending our belief in the existence of God, the resurrection of Jesus, or the validity of the Christian worldview, we may need to take some time to explain the nature, role, and power of circumstantial evidence. It’s time well spent, because most of our friends, family members, and coworkers have not given this much thought. We need to help people understand the depth and quantity of the evidence that supports our view. Remember, circumstantial cases are powerful when they are cumulative. The more evidence that points to a specific explanation, the more reasonable that explanation becomes (and the more unlikely that the evidence can be explained away as coincidental). Take the time to discover and master the evidence for yourself so you can articulate the deep, rich, and robust evidential support for the claims of Christianity.

  CASE NOTES

  9. Judicial Council of California, Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions, CalCrim Section 223.

  10. Judicial Council of California, Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions, CalCrim Section 223.

  11. Judicial Council of California, Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions, CalCrim Section 223.

  12. Gottfried Leibniz, Philosophical Writings, trans. and ed. G. H. R. Parkinson (London: Dent, 1973), 199.

  13. Stephen Hawking, Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays (New York: Bantam, 1993), Google eBook, chapter 7.

  14. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006), 188.

  15. For more information on design inferences, refer to William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

  16. Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (New York: HarperOne, 2009), 346.

  17. Meyer, Signature in the Cell, 346.

  Chapter 4

  Principle #4:

  TEST YOUR WITNESSES

  “Mr. Strickland, how can you be so sure that this man is the same man who robbed you?” The defendant’s attorney stood up as he examined the witness and pointed to the man sitting next to him at the defense table. His questions were becoming more accusatory. “Isn’t it true that the robbery occurred well after sunset?”

  “Well, yes, it was about ten thirty at night.” Jerry Strickland seemed to be preparing himself for an attack. He correctly interpreted the tone of the attorney’s question and straightened himself in the witness box. He scratched his arm nervously. I knew that Strickland was a smart guy, and I was curious to see how he would hold up under this pressure. I had been working the robbery-homicide desk when I was assigned this case, and I knew it would all come down to Strickland’s identification of the suspect.

  “I notice you are wearing glasses today, but isn’t it true that you weren’t wearing those glasses on the night of the robbery?” The defense attorney began to walk slowly toward Mr. Strickland, his arms crossed, his chin slightly elevated as he glanced briefly at the jury.

  “I had my glasses on to start with, but I got punched and they flew off my head,” replied Strickland as he pushed his glasses up on his nose. “After that I’m not sure what happened to them.” Jerry’s testimony started off calmly enough under the direct questioning of the deputy district attorney, but now he seemed to be losing his confidence under the pressure of the cross-examination.

  “How long did this episode with your attacker last?” the defense attorney asked.

  “Just a few seconds,” replied Strickland.

  “So let me get this right. You’re willing to send my client to jail for years, yet you only saw the suspect for a few seconds, late at night, in the dark, without the benefit of your glasses?” The defendant’s attorney was now facing the jury. His question was rhetorical; he made his point and was now watching the jury to see if it had the impact he intended.

  “Well, I-I’m not sure what to say,” Strickland stammered hesitantly as he sank in his chair.

  The prosecutor was an energetic, competent attorney who understood the value of this victim’s eyewitness testimony. She waited for the defense attorney to return to his seat and then prepared for her redirect. “Mr. Strickland, you said earlier that you were robbed by this man. I want to ask you a question. Given your observations of the robber prior to the moment when he punched you; your observations of the suspect’s height, the shape and features of his face, his body type, and the structure of his physique, I want you to rate your certainty about the identity of the suspect. On a scale of one to one hundred, how certain are you that this man sitting here at the defendant’s table is the man who robbed you?”

  Jerry Strickland sat up in his chair and leaned forward. He paused just slightly before answering. “I am 100 percent certain that this is the man who robbed me. There is no doubt in my mind.”

  The jury returned a verdict in less than thirty minutes and convicted the defendant, largely on the strength of Strickland’s eyewitness testimony. While the defense attorney did his best to illustrate the potential limits of the victim’s ability to accurately describe the suspect, the jury was convinced that Jerry Strickland was a competent eyewitness. They believed his testimony, and the rest was easy. Once you come to trust an eyewitness, you eventually must come to terms with the testimony that eyewitness has offered.

  LEARNING TO TRUST AN EYEWITNESS

  So, how do we come to trust what an eyewitness has to say? How can we evaluate a witness to make sure he or she is someone we can trust in the first place? Jurors are asked to evaluate witnesses in court cases every day. If you were sitting on a jury in the state of California today, the judge would give you some advice about assessing the witnesses who are about to testify before you. In fact, the judge would tell you that you ought to consider a number of factors and ask yourself the following questions:

  1. How well could the witness see, hear, or otherwise perceive the things about which the witness testified?

  2. How well was the witness able to remember and describe what happened?

  3. What was the witness’s behavior while testifying?

  4. Did the witness understand the questions and answer them directly?

  5. Was the witness’s testimony influenced by a factor such as bias or prejudice, a personal relationship with someone involved in the case, or a personal interest in how the case is decided?

  6. What was the witness’s attitude about the case or about testifying?

  7. Did the witness make a statement in the past that is consistent or inconsistent with his or her testimony?

  8. How reasonable is the testimony when you consider all the other evidence in the case?

  9. [Did other evidence prove or disprove any fact about which the witness testified?]

  10. [Did the witness admit to being untruthful?]

  11. [What is the witness’s character for truthfulness?]

  12. [Has the witness been convicted of a felony?]

  13. [Has the witness engaged in (other) conduct that reflects on his or her believability?]

  14. [Was the witness promised immunity or leniency in exchange for his or her testimony?]18

  These are the questions that jurors are encourag
ed to ask as they evaluate witnesses who testify in court. Sometimes these witnesses are testifying in trials that are a matter of life and death—trials that involve defendants who may ultimately face the death penalty. In the end, there are four critical areas of concern when it comes to evaluating an eyewitness:

  WERE THEY EVEN THERE?

  First, we’ve got to find out if the witness was even present to observe anything in the first place. This concern is captured by questions like “How well could the witness see, hear, or otherwise perceive the things about which the witness testified?” You might think that this is a silly issue to have to examine, but I can tell you from personal experience that there are times when people will claim to be a witness or participant in a case when they, in fact, were nowhere near the event. I once reopened a case from the early 1970s that my father helped investigate when he was working homicides. I remembered the case as a boy and the stress that it caused my dad when it went unsolved. The case was well known in the region and received an incredible amount of publicity. As I examined the cold case thirty years later, I discovered that the original investigators had been deceived by a man who came forward and confessed to being the killer. He sat with detectives over the course of many days and offered just enough detail to convince them that he had murdered the victim. In truth, he had nothing to do with the crime, but was seeking the attention and twisted fame it brought him. He was eventually exposed as a fraud, but his involvement in the case distracted the investigators long enough to take them off the trail of the real killer. This kind of thing happens in high-profile cases that offer fifteen minutes of fame. This is why we need to make sure that an eyewitness was truly present to see what he or she claims to have seen.

  HAVE THEY BEEN HONEST AND ACCURATE?

  Assume the Witness Is Trustworthy

  Jurors have a duty to take an unbiased look at witnesses and assume the best in them until they have a reason to do otherwise. Jurors are told to set aside “any bias or prejudice [they] may have,” including any based on the witness’s gender, race, religion, or national origin. In addition jurors are instructed: “If the evidence establishes that a witness’s character for truthfulness has not been discussed among the people who know him or her, you may conclude from the lack of discussion that the witness’s character for truthfulness is good” (Section 105, Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions, 2006).

  The primary concern that most of us have when evaluating witnesses is the issue of credibility. A witness who was present at the time of the crime but who is lying about what happened is of no value. The jury instructions address this issue with questions like “Did the witness make a statement in the past that is consistent or inconsistent with his or her testimony?” In recent years, with the large number of court cases that have been publicized and broadcast nationally, we’ve all seen examples of witnesses who have been discredited as liars. When Michael Jackson was accused of child molestation in 2003, for example, the victim’s mother took the stand as a witness. The defense exposed the fact that she had lied about a prior shoplifting incident in 1998. When the jurors discovered this, many (if not all) discredited her testimony in the 2003 case. When a witness is caught about a lie in the past, his or her testimony about the case can be called into question. It’s important, however, to remember that jurors are also given this instruction by the judge:

  If you decide that a witness deliberately lied about something significant in this case, you should consider not believing anything that witness says. Or, if you think the witness lied about some things, but told the truth about others, you may simply accept the part that you think is true and ignore the rest.19

  There may be a good reason for a witness to lie about something unrelated to the case (perhaps to avoid embarrassment or to protect the privacy of a loved one), yet still tell the truth about what he or she saw in the crime under consideration. Let’s face it, all of us have lied about one thing or another. Jurors have to decide if a witness has simply lied on occasion (for some understandable reason) or is an untrustworthy, habitual liar. In the Michael Jackson case, the jurors seemed to have decided that the witness was the latter.

  CAN THEY BE VERIFIED?

  It’s fair to ask if a witness’s observations can be verified by some other piece of evidence or testimony. This concern is captured in questions like “How reasonable is the testimony when you consider all the other evidence in the case?” or “Did other evidence prove or disprove any fact about which the witness testified?” If a witness tells you that the defendant committed a robbery at a bank teller’s window, and you come to find the defendant’s fingerprints at that particular counter, you’ve got a piece of corroborating evidence that begins to verify what the eyewitness has to say. The direct evidence of additional eyewitnesses can also verify a statement, and circumstantial evidence (forensic or otherwise) can help validate what a witness has offered.

  DO THEY HAVE AN ULTERIOR MOTIVE?

  Finally, jurors have to figure out if a witness has a motive to lie. That’s why the jury instructions include questions like “Was the witness’s testimony influenced by a factor such as bias or prejudice, a personal relationship with someone involved in the case, or a personal interest in how the case is decided?” I’ve investigated a number of spousal-abuse cases involving husbands and wives who have assaulted each other. Trying to get to the truth of the matter was extremely difficult. Both sides were so angry with one another that they were willing to do or say anything to get the ex-spouse in trouble. Each appeared to have a motive to lie or exaggerate about the violent behavior of the other spouse, and jurors had difficulty discerning the truth amid all the anger and embellishment.

  These four critical areas should be examined before we trust an eyewitness. If we can establish that a witness was present, has been accurate and honest in the past, is verified by additional evidence, and has no motive to lie, we can trust what the witness has to say.

  A Disagreement Is Not a Disqualifier

  Jurors are instructed to be cautious not to automatically disqualify a witness just because some part of his or her statement may disagree with an additional piece of evidence or testimony: “Do not automatically reject testimony just because of inconsistencies or conflicts. Consider whether the differences are important or not. People sometimes honestly forget things or make mistakes about what they remember. Also, two people may witness the same event yet see or hear it differently” (Section 105, Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions, 2006).

  SO, WHY CAN’T THEY AGREE?

  If there’s one thing my experience as a detective has revealed, however, it’s that witnesses often make conflicting and inconsistent statements when describing what they saw at a crime scene. They frequently disagree with one another and either fail to see something obvious or describe the same event in a number of conflicting ways. The more witnesses involved in a case, the more likely there will be points of disagreement.

  I can remember a particular homicide that occurred in a restaurant parking lot in our town, late one rainy night, well after our homicide team went home for the day. Patrol officers responded to the scene and discovered that the suspect was already long gone. The officers located three witnesses and interviewed them very briefly. They quickly recognized that the murder investigation would require the involvement of our team. Radio dispatch called our sergeant, and he began waking us up by telephone, summoning four of us to handle the investigation. It took me nearly an hour to get into a suit and drive to the location of the crime. When I got there, I discovered that the officers gathered the witnesses and put them in the backseat of their police unit so they wouldn’t get drenched in the rain. This simple act of kindness nearly ruined the case.

  I learned many years ago the importance of separating witnesses. If eyewitnesses are quickly separated from one another, they are far more likely to provide an uninf
luenced, pure account of what they saw. Yes, their accounts will inevitably differ from the accounts of others who witnessed the same event, but that is the natural result of a witness’s past experience, perspective, and worldview. I can deal with the inconsistencies; I expect them. But when witnesses are allowed to sit together (prior to being interviewed) and compare notes and observations, I’m likely to get one harmonized version of the event. Everyone will offer the same story. While this may be tidier, it will come at the sacrifice of some important detail that a witness is willing to forfeit in order to align his or her story with the other witnesses. I’m not willing to pay that price. I would far rather have three messy, apparently contradictory versions of the event than one harmonized version that has eliminated some important detail. I know in the end I’ll be able to determine the truth of the matter by examining all three stories. The apparent contradictions are usually easy to explain once I learn something about the witnesses and their perspectives (both visually and personally) at the time of the crime.

  Let me give you an example. Many years ago I investigated a robbery in which a male suspect entered a small grocery store, walked up to the counter, and calmly contacted the cashier. The suspect removed a handgun from his waistband and placed it on the counter. He pointed it at the cashier, using his right hand to hold the gun on the counter, his finger on the trigger. The suspect quietly told the cashier to empty the register of its money and place it in a plastic bag. The cashier complied and gave the robber all the money in the drawer. The robber then calmly walked from the store. This robbery was observed by two witnesses, who were properly separated and interviewed apart from one another. When the crime report was assigned to me as the investigator, I read the officer’s summary and wondered if the witnesses were describing the same robber: