STALKERS, PRIVATE DETECTIVES AND SCUMBAGS

Throughout my career as a private detective, I have been referred to by various titles by acquaintances, new contacts, and defense attorneys during cross-examinations. The first two groups often use endearing terms such as gumshoe, sleuth, Sherlock, Magnum P.I., and secret squirrel, which I appreciate. However, it is the derogatory labels assigned by defense attorneys, aimed at undermining my professional credibility, that have been particularly disheartening. I have been labeled as a peeping Tom, a stalker, a spy, and an infiltrator, among other unflattering terms.

The defense's strategy during cross-examination has consistently failed to affect me, as they are often unprepared for my responses. During one particular court testimony, after I finished my time on the stand and was exiting the courtroom, an attorney audibly referred to me as a scumbag, ensuring that both the jury and the judge heard the remark. I will elaborate on that incident later in this narrative.

It is essential to recognize the reasons an attorney may seek to discredit an expert witness during testimony. Attorneys engage in this strategy during cross-examination to undermine the witness's credibility and the trustworthiness of their statements, with the goal of diminishing the opposing party's case. By instilling doubt in the jury regarding the witness's honesty and understanding of the events, they aim to sway the trial's outcome in favor of their client. Essentially, this is a fundamental aspect of their role, and investigators should not take such tactics personally.

By highlighting inconsistencies between a witness's current statements and earlier accounts, such as depositions or police reports, an attorney can cast doubt on the witness's reliability and trustworthiness. Legal representatives may also seek to uncover any biases or personal interests that could affect the witness's objectivity. Through the use of leading questions or strategic phrasing, the lawyer may attempt to influence the witness's memory of events, thereby raising questions about the accuracy of their testimony. Employing a confrontational approach can induce nervousness in the witness, further diminishing their credibility in the jury's perception. While aggressive cross-examination is a recognized legal strategy, attorneys are required to follow ethical standards, refraining from personal attacks or efforts to mislead the witness intentionally. In certain situations, an attorney may opt against a vigorous cross-examination if the witness's testimony is deemed non-essential or if there is a risk of negative repercussions.

A private detective testifying in court must anticipate and be ready for various tactics employed by attorneys. Maintaining composure is crucial, as reacting in the expected manner can undermine credibility. Instead, responding unexpectedly can help counteract the lawyer's strategy. For instance, one defense attorney questioned me about the duration of my alleged stalking activities, aiming to undermine my professional reputation and cast me in a negative light, as the term "stalker" carries significant stigma.

My response effectively countered his strategy. I stated, "Under the anti-stalking law, a stalker lacks a legitimate purpose for their actions, whereas I am a professional licensed by the state of Pennsylvania in accordance with the Pennsylvania Private Detective Act of 1953, possessing a legitimate purpose." Surveillance is deemed legitimate when it aims to collect evidence for criminal investigations, verify information in civil matters, monitor suspicious activities related to potential threats, or protect property, all while complying with legal standards and respecting privacy rights. Essentially, surveillance is justified when conducted for a specific, lawful reason, such as investigating suspected criminal behavior or validating claims in legal disputes.

Pennsylvania's stalking statute is outlined in 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 2709.1. The law classifies stalking as a criminal offense when an individual persistently engages in behaviors that instill fear, cause physical harm, or result in emotional distress to another person. Stalking behaviors can include, but are not limited to, consistently following someone without justification, making repeated threats or inappropriate remarks, appearing in unanticipated locations, maintaining a close presence to the victim, incessantly communicating with the victim despite requests to cease contact, and negatively reaching out to the victim's friends and family.

Stalking constitutes a criminal offense, typically classified as a first-degree misdemeanor, potentially leading to a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a fine of $10,000. In cases where the accused has a prior record of domestic violence or is subject to a Protection From Abuse (PFA) order, stalking may escalate to a third-degree felony. Additionally, it may result in further criminal charges, including assault, kidnapping, or harassment.

A beneficial strategy for an investigator serving as a witness is to concentrate on the statements made by the defense attorney. To enhance this focus, it is advisable to avoid direct eye contact with the defense attorney during questioning. Witnesses must recognize that their primary obligation is to provide testimony to the court and the jury, while also addressing the parties involved in the case. When questioned by the attorneys, who engaged your services, maintain eye contact with them and respond with clarity, ensuring that your answers are based solely on factual information. It is crucial to refrain from offering personal opinions during your testimony.

During the defense's cross-examination of the investigator, it is advisable to shift your position to either the left or the right, ensuring that your ear is directed towards the attorney to fully absorb their statements. When providing your response, direct it towards the judge or the jury. Defense attorneys often dislike being unable to establish direct eye contact, as it diminishes their ability to intimidate you. This approach to testifying can also disconcert the defense, as they are generally unprepared for such a strategy. It is essential to recognize that sworn testimony constitutes evidence provided by a witness who has pledged to speak truthfully. Should the witness be discovered to have lied while under this obligation, they may frequently face charges of perjury.

One subtle strategy employed by investigators is to don blue attire while testifying under oath. The color blue is widely recognized for its associations with calmness, strength, reflection, dependability, trust, truthfulness, loyalty, and peace. By choosing to wear blue, individuals project a powerful image that resonates with the jury's subconscious, simultaneously exerting a soothing influence on the central nervous system. The color evokes imagery of clear skies and tranquil waters, reinforcing perceptions of trustworthiness and reliability. Studies indicate that individuals dressed in blue or driving blue vehicles are often viewed as more credible than those in other colors. Blue symbolizes intelligence, wisdom, spirituality, and effective communication, embodying competence and self-assurance. Additionally, dark blue uniforms worn by police and corporate types convey messages of confidence, competence, adherence to rules, and strong values. Dressing appropriately for court appearances is essential. A well-presented individual conveys professionalism and respect. While a suit and tie are ideal, those without a suit or who prefer less formal attire should opt for slacks, dress shoes, and a collared shirt.

Previously, I recounted an incident in which an attorney referred to me as a scumbag while I was exiting the stand. To clarify this situation further, I would like to elaborate that I employed all the aforementioned strategies during that day. The defense team consisted of three prominent attorneys representing the claimant, while I was retained by the insurance company. The sheer number of attorneys advocating for her claim was sufficiently daunting to unsettle anyone under cross-examination.

The results of my investigation were delivered to the insurance client through a written report accompanied by a copy of the acquired surveillance footage. My report included significant photographic evidence that supported the findings. It is important to highlight that the law office was situated on the same street as the county seat, which, in my view, conveyed an impression of authority and influence. On the day of the surveillance, the claimant was scheduled for an Independent Medical Examination (I.M.E.).

?“People know they're being followed when they turn around and see someone following them. They can't tell they're being followed if you get there first”.

(The above quote is from the Movie Zero Effect.).

The claimant traveled from their residence to the law office, where the attorney welcomed them at the street level and directed them to park in the designated lot behind the office. After parking, the attorney warmly embraced the claimant (Screenshot) and courteously opened the passenger door for her before entering his own vehicle to drive her to the Independent Medical Examination (IME) appointment. Anticipating the IME appointment, the investigator increased his speed that day, arriving at the medical facility ahead of them.

Upon arrival, the attorney parked his vehicle, got out, and opened the passenger door for the claimant (screenshot). They then made their way to the entrance of the medical building, where he held the door open for her to enter first (Screenshot). After spending approximately an hour inside, they left the building, and once again, the attorney held the door for her as she exited and as she approached the passenger side of his car (Screenshots).

I hurried to the lawyer's office and positioned myself to observe the rear parking lot prior to their arrival. Upon their arrival, I recorded their exit from the vehicle, noting a prolonged embrace between the claimant and the attorney (screenshot). The attorney then assisted the claimant by opening her vehicle door, after which she drove away alone. Upon reaching her home, I documented her exiting the vehicle and entering the house. Throughout the surveillance, the claimant did not use any visible orthopedic aids or devices and exhibited no hesitation in her movements. She entered, operated, and exited her vehicle with ease (screenshots). It is noteworthy that her injury claim included a statement asserting her inability to drive (screenshots).

The depiction of the attorney-client relationship in my report implied a close connection, though it was not explicitly articulated in that manner. The adage "a picture is worth a thousand words" underscores the notion that a single image can communicate intricate ideas or narratives more effectively than extensive text, highlighting the greater impact of visual representation over mere written descriptions. Screenshots from video in an investigative report can encapsulate nuances, feelings, and context that may be inadequately conveyed through words alone, making the visual portrayal of real events especially compelling.

After being excused from the witness stand, I made my way across the courtroom towards the exit. The attorney featured in the screenshots of my investigative report shouted "SCUMBAG!" I turned to the judge and inquired, "Your honor, did you hear what he said?" The judge acknowledged my question, replying, "Yes, you are excused, Mr. DeFinis." I then left the courtroom and the county seat, heading to my investigative headquarters.

The following day, the client contacted me to discuss the final outcome of the case. I was eager to hear from him and about the final results. He responded, "You did well SCUMBAG, the jury ruled in favor of the claimant, awarding her only $1 in compensation." ?

This marked the first occasion in my career where I felt a sense of satisfaction despite being referred to negatively by an attorney. It seems my effective handling of the cross-examination led to his loss of composure in front of both the judge and the jury. Valuable lessons were learned from this experience.

?

?