# Protection of the witness' identity in trial - miscarriage of justice?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/protection-of-the-witness-identity-in-trial-miscarriage-of-justice/295542
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [March 21, 2005, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/protection-of-the-witness-identity-in-trial-miscarriage-of-justice/295542 "2005-03-21T12:07:06Z")
**Posts on this page:** 8
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Tabby\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tabby_Cat)
#### Post date: [March 21, 2005, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/protection-of-the-witness-identity-in-trial-miscarriage-of-justice/295542/1 "2005-03-21T12:07:06Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Errol Robinson - acting for Marcus Ellis and Rodrigo Simms - says the way witnesses’ identities were protected has led to a miscarriage of justice.
>
> One key witness was given a false name, hidden behind a screen and had his voice altered electronically.
>
> The Crown Prosecution Service said the measures were due to fears of reprisal.
>
> It said the trial, at Leicester Crown Court, had been marred by serious and consistent attempts to intimidate key witnesses.
> [@](#):
>
> Mr Robinson said: "There has been a grave miscarriage of justice following one of the most unfair trials of modern times.
>
> “If someone is accusing you of anything, let alone a matter of this gravity, you really ought to know who that person is so you can investigate the motives for that person giving evidence so that there is a fair trial.”
Is the concealing of the identity of a witness in a trial just? The concerns about the difficulty of getting people to come forward to give evidence seem very valid to me, and I think that giving them anonimity is a great way to get more witnesses to come forward. But does that significantly reduce the ability of the defendants to defend themselves? I don’t think so. The defence can still cross examine the witness, and even if it is a bit unfair, the simple fact that there were repeated attempts to intimidate witnesses should force them to forfeit the right to know the identity of the witnesses.
In any case, the prosecution and the judge still know the identity of the witness.
Is the right to know the identity of your witness really such a fundamental human right? Is the trial still fair without knowing the identity of the witness?
---
### Author:  [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)
#### Post date: [March 21, 2005, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/protection-of-the-witness-identity-in-trial-miscarriage-of-justice/295542/2 "2005-03-21T12:46:48Z")
I thought the bill of rights ensured the right to face one’s accuser.
---
### Author:  [@Tabby\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tabby_Cat)
#### Post date: [March 21, 2005, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/protection-of-the-witness-identity-in-trial-miscarriage-of-justice/295542/3 "2005-03-21T12:55:05Z")
It’s not about the accuser, but rather the witness. The accuser is the public prosecutor, I would think.
---
### Author:  [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)
#### Post date: [March 21, 2005, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/protection-of-the-witness-identity-in-trial-miscarriage-of-justice/295542/4 "2005-03-21T13:38:36Z")
> [@cricetus](#):
>
> I thought the bill of rights ensured the right to face one’s accuser.
There is a world outside the USA you know. This is an English case.
---
### Author:  [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)
#### Post date: [March 21, 2005, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/protection-of-the-witness-identity-in-trial-miscarriage-of-justice/295542/5 "2005-03-21T13:52:01Z")
> [@tagos](#):
>
> There is a world outside the USA you know. This is an English case.
I see. It’s not necessary to be snarky about it, you know.
---
### Author:  [@don\_t\_ask](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/don_t_ask)
#### Post date: [March 21, 2005, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/protection-of-the-witness-identity-in-trial-miscarriage-of-justice/295542/6 "2005-03-21T13:53:59Z")
Seems dodgy to me. As the defense states “If someone is accusing you of anything, let alone a matter of this gravity, you really ought to know who that person is so you can investigate the motives for that person giving evidence so that there is a fair trial.”
If you were on trial and someone you know was testifying against you it may be handy to know that the witness is:
the guy screwing your wife
your principle business rival
the bloke you sacked last year
the guy who’s wife you are screwing
etc
While the witness is a mere cipher the court can only accept their testimony as the gospel. Not knowing who they are questioning would hamper any defence attempts to bring the witness’s motives into question.
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [March 23, 2005, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/protection-of-the-witness-identity-in-trial-miscarriage-of-justice/295542/7 "2005-03-23T04:33:14Z")
> [@cricetus](#):
>
> I see. It’s not necessary to be snarky about it, you know.
Well, they didn’t give tagos that medal for being a Yank-nanny.
[sub]wot-wot?![/sub]
---
### Author:  [@Campion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Campion)
#### Post date: [March 24, 2005, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/protection-of-the-witness-identity-in-trial-miscarriage-of-justice/295542/8 "2005-03-24T20:43:43Z")
> [@tagos](#):
>
> > [@cricetus](#):
> >
> > I thought the bill of rights ensured the right to face one’s accuser.
>
> There is a world outside the USA you know. This is an English case.
And the Bill of Rights, like much of American law, was either based on English law, or based on things the English were doing that Americans didn’t much like. So, respectfully, **cricetus** ’s point directly responded to the OP:
> [@Tabby\_Cat](#):
>
> Is the right to know the identity of your witness really such a fundamental human right? Is the trial still fair without knowing the identity of the witness?
Americans answer that, yes, it is – so fundamental, in fact, that for us it ranks right up there with freedom of speech, the right to be secure in our homes from governmental intrusion, and the right to a trial by a jury of our peers.
Cross examination is considered by many to be the greatest tool for discovering the truth that Western civilization has developed. In the old days, trials were simply gamesmanship: neither side told the other much of anything, and all was revealed (Perry Mason-like) at trial. For all I know, English trials are still run that way.
In America, however, we have decided that getting to the truth comes an awful lot better if both sides know (or at least have a general idea) about the evidence to be marshalled. As **don’t ask** put it, if I don’t know who the witness is, I don’t know if they have a dog in this fight. In the Michael Jackson trial, for example, is it relevant that the accuser’s family have allegedly attempted to obtain money under false pretenses from other celebrities and businesses? Yes. Could the defense team have found that out if they didn’t know who the accuser was? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
My take on it? It’s a form of evidence preclusion – if a party misbehaves badly enough, the court can sanction that party by precluding it from presenting certain evidence (for example, the court could limit or eliminate cross-examination of a prosecution witness). But the article doesn’t state whether the defendant in fact tampered with witnesses so as to justify preclusion – it simply seems that everyone assumes he did.
Either way, to answer the OP: yes, the right to confront the witnesses against you in a criminal trial is a fundamental element of due process. It may not be a human right, but it comes darn close.