The Paradox Of Federal Oversight In Police Misconduct Investigations
J. David Rosenberg College of Law, University of Kentucky
How they used Delve
A law professor at the University of Kentucky used Delve to identify key themes across 50-plus repeated interviews with police misconduct prosecutors and investigators, feeding what emerged after each round back into the follow-up questions for the next interview.
“Following all interviews, I transcribed the recording via Otter.ai, identified key themes using Delve Qualitative Software, and wrote follow up and clarification questions in anticipation of our next interview.”
- Field
- Law and criminal justice; how state prosecutors, federal prosecutors and the DOJ Civil Rights Division interact when police misconduct is investigated and prosecuted
- Data
- Over 50 interviews with police misconduct prosecutors, civilian investigators and other legal professionals across multiple field sites in the United States - assistant, junior, line and federal prosecutors rather than only elected district attorneys - each respondent interviewed at least twice
- Approach
- Repeated in-depth interviews: each respondent was interviewed at least twice, two to three weeks apart, with each interview running one to two hours, to build rapport and reach deeper material over time. Recruitment was by snowball sampling from key respondents, giving variation in location, perspective and expertise. After each round the author transcribed with Otter.ai, identified key themes in Delve, and used what surfaced to write follow-up and clarification questions for the next interview. Jottings and fieldnotes taken in real time supplemented the audio, and findings were synthesised into short memos and then longer sections during writing.
- Data types
- Interviews
Abstract
This Article examines the relationship between state prosecutors, federal prosecutors, and the Civil Rights Division inside the United States Department of Justice responsible for conducting police misconduct investigations and prosecutions. Previous literature documents prosecutors’ enormous concentration of power, yet they remain an understudied population in the criminal legal system, particularly as they investigate and prosecute police officers accused of crimes. To remedy this gap, I conducted over 50 interviews with police misconduct prosecutors, civilian investigators, and other legal professionals working in the domain of police misconduct investigations and prosecutions in multiple field sites around the United States. The interview data demonstrates that police misconduct prosecutors do possess idiosyncratic and specialized skill sets. However, I find that mounting public pressure for police accountability coincides with limited prosecutorial expertise and proficiency in successfully prosecuting police misconduct around the United States. Such a sociolegal environment may encourage the sharing of ideas, resources, and knowledge between prosecutors that have unique insights regarding what constitutes persuasive evidentiary strategies helpful for securing indictments and convictions. Yet, I expose a novel paradox: experienced prosecutors may reject exogenous support because they understand it as disruptive and oppressive surveillance by outsiders. Results demonstrate that growing demands for police accountability confront established occupational scaffolds and federal collaboration threatens longstanding notions of occupational autonomy, prosecutorial esteem, and risks oversight by outsiders.
Citation
Ilana M. Friedman (2025). The Paradox Of Federal Oversight In Police Misconduct Investigations. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5168591