The Police Report Isn't the Whole Story
Why Witness Interviews Matter in Arizona Criminal Cases
When someone is arrested or charged with a crime, one of the first things a criminal defense attorney receives is often a collection of police reports. Those reports can be intimidating. They may contain accusations, witness statements, descriptions of physical evidence, conclusions drawn by police officers, and sometimes opinions from medical professionals or other experts.
But a police report is not the whole case.
It is a written summary of an investigation, usually prepared from the perspective of law enforcement. It may tell you what an officer believed happened, what a witness reportedly said, and what evidence was collected. It does not necessarily tell you everything a witness remembers, everything an officer observed, what investigators failed to pursue, or how strong an expert's conclusions actually are.
That is one reason witness interviews can be an important part of defending a criminal case in Arizona.
At AJB Law Firm, LLC, criminal defense attorney Amanda Bynum represents people accused of criminal offenses in Tucson and throughout Pima County. Preparing a defense means doing more than reading the police report. It means questioning the evidence, investigating alternative explanations, and determining what the State's witnesses can—and cannot—actually prove.
What Is a Defense Witness Interview?
In an Arizona criminal case, the defense may have an opportunity before trial to interview witnesses the prosecution discloses.
These interviews can include alleged victims, eyewitnesses, police officers, detectives, forensic scientists, medical professionals, and expert witnesses.
A defense interview is different from simply reading that person's report or reviewing a summary of what the person previously said.
During an interview, a criminal defense attorney can ask detailed questions, clarify ambiguous statements, explore areas that were never addressed during the original investigation, and learn what the witness is likely to say if called to testify at trial.
Sometimes an interview confirms what appears in the reports.
Sometimes it does not.
And sometimes the most important information is not what the witness says—it is what the witness cannot say.
Why Interview a Police Officer Who Already Wrote a Report?
Clients sometimes wonder why their attorney needs to interview a police officer when the officer has already prepared a report.
The answer is simple: the report and the officer's actual knowledge are not necessarily the same thing.
A report is a summary. It may combine information from different sources, omit details the officer did not consider significant at the time, or contain conclusions that require further examination.
A defense attorney may want to determine:
What did the officer personally see or hear?
What information came from another person?
What assumptions did the officer make?
What evidence did the officer collect?
What evidence was available but not collected?
Were other possible explanations investigated?
Were witnesses asked follow-up questions?
Was potentially exculpatory evidence preserved?
Did the officer document everything important that occurred?
Has the officer's memory or understanding of the case changed?
These questions can become particularly important when one officer relies on information gathered by another officer.
For example, an officer might testify that an injury was "consistent with" a particular type of assault. But what qualifies that officer to make that determination? Did the officer personally examine the injury? Does the officer have medical training? Were other possible causes considered?
Those questions may not be answered by the police report.
Expert Witness Interviews Can Be Even More Important
Some criminal cases involve expert witnesses.
Depending on the allegations, the prosecution might call a toxicologist, forensic scientist, accident reconstructionist, medical professional, forensic nurse, psychologist, or another person with specialized knowledge.
The word "expert" can sound conclusive.
It shouldn't.
Expert testimony is evidence, and like any other evidence, it should be examined critically.
One of the most important distinctions in evaluating expert testimony is the difference between saying:
"This evidence proves X."
and:
"This evidence can be consistent with X."
Those statements are not interchangeable.
Imagine, for example, that photographs show bruising on someone's body. An expert might agree that the bruising could be consistent with the mechanism alleged by the prosecution.
But that raises additional questions.
Could something else cause a similar appearance?
Can the expert determine the cause of the bruise from a photograph alone?
Can the expert determine precisely when it occurred?
Did the expert personally examine the person?
Were diagnostic tests performed?
How much of the expert's conclusion depends upon what the person reported happened?
Did the expert consider alternative explanations?
Can the expert exclude those alternatives?
A thorough expert interview can expose the difference between what the science actually demonstrates and what someone has inferred from the evidence.
What Does the Expert Actually Know?
Expertise is not unlimited.
A person may be highly qualified in one area without being qualified to offer every medical, scientific, or psychological opinion that might arise in a criminal case.
That makes the expert's education and experience important.
A defense attorney may examine where the expert went to school, what degrees and certifications the expert holds, how long the expert has practiced, and what specialized training applies to the particular issue in the case.
But simply asking whether someone "received training" doesn't tell you much.
More useful questions may include:
How many hours of specialized training did you receive?
Who provided that training?
What subjects were actually covered?
Was the course primarily medical, forensic, or law-enforcement focused?
Did you receive hands-on clinical instruction?
Were you tested?
What did you have to demonstrate to pass?
Have you conducted research in this area?
Have you published peer-reviewed research?
How often have you encountered this particular issue clinically?
There is an important difference between attending a presentation about a subject and possessing specialized expertise sufficient to reliably determine what caused an injury in a particular case.
A Photograph May Show an Injury Without Showing How It Happened
Photographs are powerful evidence because jurors can see them for themselves.
But photographs also have limitations.
A photograph may establish that discoloration, swelling, an abrasion, or another mark existed at the time the photograph was taken.
That does not necessarily establish how the mark was created.
Causation can be a different question.
Depending on the circumstances, a defense attorney may need to explore whether similar physical findings can have multiple causes.
Questions might include whether the expert can determine the mechanism of an injury from its appearance alone, whether individual differences affect bruising, whether medications or medical conditions could influence bruising, whether lighting affects the appearance of a photograph, and whether an in-person examination would have provided information that photographs cannot.
The important question is not merely:
"Is this consistent with the prosecution's theory?"
It is also:
"What else is it consistent with?"
And then:
"Can you reliably distinguish between those possibilities?"
Those questions can dramatically change how seemingly powerful evidence should be understood.
How Much of a Medical Opinion Depends on What the Patient Reported?
Another important issue arises when a medical or forensic witness relies partly on a patient's description of what happened.
Patient history is an important part of medicine. Healthcare professionals routinely ask patients what happened, what symptoms they experienced, when symptoms began, and where they feel pain.
But in a criminal case, it is important to distinguish between objective findings and reported history.
Suppose a medical professional observes bruising and documents that the patient reported being assaulted.
The objective observation may be that bruising existed.
The cause of that bruising may be a separate conclusion.
A defense attorney may therefore ask:
What conclusions can you reach from the physical findings alone?
What conclusions depend upon the history provided by the patient?
If you had been given a different history, would your interpretation have changed?
Can the physical evidence independently establish which account is accurate?
That does not mean a patient's report should automatically be disregarded. It means the jury should understand which portions of an expert's testimony come from independent medical findings and which depend upon information supplied by someone else.
Interviews Can Reveal What Wasn't Investigated
A good criminal investigation should look for evidence.
A good criminal defense investigation also asks what evidence is missing.
Consider the difference.
A police report might say that one person accused another of committing an offense and that an officer found the accusation credible.
A defense attorney may want to know what investigators did to test that accusation.
Was surveillance footage available?
Were other witnesses identified?
Were text messages reviewed?
Were photographs taken?
Was physical evidence collected?
Were alternative explanations investigated?
Did anyone attempt to corroborate the timeline?
Was potentially favorable evidence preserved?
Did investigators follow up when accounts were inconsistent?
None of those questions necessarily proves that an accusation is false. But criminal defense is not supposed to begin with an assumption that the government's theory is correct.
The evidence should be tested.
What Happens When an Interview Doesn't Match the Police Report?
Differences between an interview and a police report do not automatically mean someone lied.
People remember additional details. Officers summarize conversations. Questions asked by one interviewer may be different from questions asked by another. Memory can change over time.
But significant differences can matter.
Suppose a report describes a witness as being certain about an important fact, but during an interview the witness acknowledges uncertainty.
Or a report attributes a conclusion to an officer that turns out to have come from someone else.
Or an expert initially appears to offer a definitive conclusion but acknowledges during an interview that several alternative explanations are medically possible.
Those distinctions can affect how an attorney evaluates a case.
They can influence plea negotiations, motions, trial strategy, impeachment, cross-examination, and sometimes whether the prosecution should continue pursuing a particular charge at all.
Why This Matters When Choosing a Tucson Criminal Defense Attorney
Criminal defense involves much more than showing up in court.
A lawyer must understand what the State's evidence actually proves—and what it doesn't.
That can require reviewing body-worn camera footage, examining photographs, researching scientific or medical issues, interviewing witnesses, questioning experts, identifying inconsistencies, investigating alternative explanations, and determining whether opinions being offered actually fall within a witness's expertise.
The allegations written in a police report are the government's starting point.
They do not have to be the defense's ending point.
Amanda Bynum is a Tucson criminal defense attorney and the owner of AJB Law Firm, LLC. She represents clients facing DUI, domestic violence, assault, felony, and other criminal charges in Tucson and throughout Pima County.
If you have been arrested, charged with a crime, or learned that you are under investigation, obtaining an independent evaluation of the evidence can be critical. The question is not simply what the police report says.
The better questions are: What actually happened? What does the evidence actually establish? And has anyone tested the assumptions behind the State's case?
Contact AJB Law Firm, LLC to schedule a consultation with a Tucson criminal defense attorney about your case.
This article provides general information about Arizona criminal cases and is not legal advice. Every criminal case is different, and past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
