Shannon Bohrer served 27 years in the Maryland State Police. Following retirement, he taught at the FBI Academy in Quantico, VA, and served as the Firearms Rangemaster for the Maryland Police Training Commission. He has written numerous law enforcement articles and writes a monthly column for a local newspaper. He holds an M.B.A from Frostburg State University and has been an expert witness in the use of force in both State and Federal courts.
1. Can you share the details of the specific case that inspired you to write "Judicial Soup"? What made it stand out from other cases where you provided expert testimony?
My career in law enforcement spanned forty-two years, and I have testified in court hundreds of times—most of the testimony related to individuals I charged with crimes. I have also testified as an expert in cases in both state and federal courts.
The prosecution of this case was unlike any that I have experienced. The police did not really investigate. Instead, they took statements from alleged victims and witnesses to confirm what they believed occurred, instead of letting the evidence lead them to their conclusions. In doing so, they ignored obvious conflicts with the statements and facts presented to them.
The grand jury process mirrored the police investigation. Ther prosecution intended to prove what they believed occurred. Numerous discrepancies and obvious conflicts with the testimony were ignored.
While there was a lack of investigation before the trial, I believed the court would see the facts and render a verdict of not guilty, but I was wrong. The trial court ignored the conflicts presented with testimony and often prohibited the introduction of evidence contradicting the prosecution’s case.
I had never experienced anything like this case, where so many mistakes and misinformation occurred in each stage of the process. From my perspective, every part of the judicial process was not to determine what occurred but to prove what they believed happened.
2. Considering the broad topic of judicial reform, what changes do you hope your book will inspire?
I would like to see the book used as a model of how the system failed. Each part of the process can be examined and questioned. The rush to judgment by the police, the grand jury process, and then the trial, without questioning obvious factual discrepancies, was responsible for injustice in this case.
Other cases were inserted in the book behind each chapter, many of which had similar problems and issues to the primary case presented. The purpose was to give the reader a broader perspective and inform them that this one case was not an aberration.
In most of the cases presented, the officers, prosecutors, and others are rarely held accountable for any mistakes, even when they are intentional. If one has the authority, they should also be held responsible. If a prosecutor withholds exculpatory evidence, there should be some accountability. If a critical witness lies and an innocent person is incarcerated, the statute of limitations should not protect them. There should be consequences if an “expert witness” is not an expert.
3. While writing this book, several high-profile police misconduct cases occurred, such as those involving George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Tyre Nichols. How, if at all, did these cases influence your writing or the content of the book?
These cases reinforced and broadened my focus. When you have a severe case of police/judicial misconduct, the problems are magnified in the media, as they should be.
The three cases you mentioned could be informative if studied and examined for the purpose of reforms. While we examine the cases involving the officers’ actions, we often neglect to examine the training and supervision and the agency’s responsibility. It was reported that the officer who killed George Floyd had numerous founded complaints. If true, why was he in the position of a field training officer?
4. Given the current division in the country regarding policing, how do you anticipate your former colleagues in law enforcement will react to the themes and messages in your book?
I expect both positive and negative feedback. The cases mentioned in the previous question should challenge the criminal justice community to re-examine hiring, training, and supervision.
As mentioned above, why was the officer that killed George Floyd a training officer? When incidents occur, we focus on the incident. If we examine the officer’s past and previous behavior, could we conclude that the incident may have been preventable?
I believe that most officers would welcome reforms that improve their image and help them perform their duties.
5. What personal experiences or insights from your career in law enforcement do you feel were crucial in shaping the narrative of "Judicial Soup"?
I had a long and rewarding career. The various work, responsibilities, and positions certainly influenced my perceptions of our criminal justice system. I always knew some flaws existed, but it was my belief that the problems were a minor segment of the entire system.
As I said earlier, this case was unlike anything I had ever experienced. Recent events have added to that awareness. Together, they allowed me to question my beliefs, specifically about the extent of problems in our criminal justice system.
I believe in the principle of law and justice. Equity in the application of laws is critical for a society’s belief in their government. I know that life is not always fair, but failure to speak is often taken as silent consent.
6. How do you think the media's portrayal of police misconduct and wrongful convictions impacts public perception and the push for judicial reforms?
The media attention is needed to focus on the problems that exist. When reported, a more focused view on the background of an event, the victim, the officer’s past behaviors, and the agency itself, along with previous related issues, could be helpful.
7. In "Judicial Soup," you highlight systemic issues within the criminal justice system. What do you believe are the most critical first steps toward meaningful reform?
Research and defining the problem.
If there are multiple industrial, workplace, and/or transportation accidents, the government conducts research with the purpose of reducing injuries, deaths, and property loss. The same circumstance exists with the incarceration of innocent persons.
For example, one case in the book is about an innocent person released from death row. When he was released, he was the 10th person in that state to be exonerated while on death row. With so many innocent programs and existing cases, one would think that reexamining the cases would be the minimum that should be done.
The individuals wrongfully convicted and incarcerated are a symptom of the problem. The problem is how they got there. To correct the problems, the circumstance that allow innocent people to be convicted needs to be addressed.
“There comes a point where we need to stop just pulling people out of the river. We need to go upstream and find out why they’re falling in.” Desmond Tutu
Another matter of wrongful convictions that is rarely addressed is that the individuals who actually committed the crimes are probably committing more crimes.
8. How do you balance presenting factual case summaries with engaging storytelling to ensure your book resonates with a broad audience?
The book is written in an adult learning format, with the intent to keep the reader involved. As the reader follows the principal case, it would be easy to conclude that the case is a rare or uncommon event. With the subchapter cases, the reader is gradually fed information, which gives the reader a better understanding of the issues related to false convictions. The intent is to give the reader a broader perspective that similar issues and problems occur frequently. The extent of the problem is unknown.
Our perceptions often reflect our attitudes about what we believe. The story allows the reader to challenge their own perceptions of mistakes, corruption, and misconduct in our criminal justice system.
9. What role do you believe education and training play in preventing wrongful convictions and police misconduct?
Education and training are required, but the scope should be expanded to include individuals and groups in administrative positions. Additionally, there must be education and training that can influence attitudes and culture.
Education and training should start at the top. Too many instances have occurred because of a lack of management and supervision. The George Floyd case is likely an example of that failure.
When an incident of police misconduct occurs, we need to ask questions about what factors contributed to the event prior to the event. Training and supervision are a good start.
10. How has your background as an expert witness in use-of-force cases influenced your perspective on the judicial process and the need for reform as depicted in your book?
I always knew there were police officers who should not wear a badge, and I always believed, and still do, that they are a minority. What surprised me about this case and other cases mentioned in the book was the volume of wrongful convictions and instances where police, prosecutors, and witnesses gave false testimony and withheld exculpatory evidence.
It has been said that twenty percent of your customers can be eighty percent of your business in a business setting. In the criminal justice community, I believe that a minority of officers and others are responsible for most of the misconduct.
