Your guide to NYC's public proceedings.
Q&A
Discussion on evidence standards and low substantiation rates for sexual abuse claims
2:05:23
·
3 min
Video Player is loading.
Current Time 0:00
/
Duration 0:00
Loaded: 0%
0:00
Stream Type LIVE
Remaining Time -0:00
Â
1x
- Chapters
- descriptions off, selected
- captions settings, opens captions settings dialog
- captions off, selected
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
End of dialog window.
Council Member Cabán questions DOC officials about the standards of evidence used for substantiating sexual abuse claims and expresses concern about low substantiation rates. The discussion covers:
- The definition of 'preponderance of evidence' standard
- DOC's reliance on video monitoring and DNA testing as primary evidence sources
- Cabán's concern that individual testimony is not given enough weight in investigations
- The disparity between DOC's substantiation rates and national averages
Tiffany Cabán
2:05:23
Thank you.
2:05:25
I want to go back to a line of questioning that the chair did earlier, specifically around substantiation.
2:05:34
So you talked about founded and unfounded investigations.
2:05:41
You said that the standard of evidence to substantiate a claim is the preponderance of evidence.
2:05:47
Just for the record, for the public, for the people that are listening, what is the definition of preponderance of evidence?
2:06:11
That's right.
2:06:11
So in in other words, preponderance of the evidence equals that it's a demonstration that the proposition is more likely than not, just a a cent over 50%.
2:06:23
Now you also talked about unfounded claims and the number of unfounded claims that you have, and you said if if you defined unfounded as proving it did not occur, what is the level of proof you are using for unfounded claims.
2:07:00
K?
2:07:00
So I I wanna also that that's perfect because I wanna go into the evidence that you're looking at.
2:07:05
You said the main sources of evidence that you're looking at are video monitoring and DNA testing.
2:07:11
Correct?
2:07:12
Well, electronic monitoring includes telephone statements as well.
2:07:15
Okay.
2:07:15
So you're relying a lot on on these types.
2:07:19
Now are you aware that the legal standard across both civil and criminal investigations and proceedings is that individual testimony alone, absent DNA testing, act sent video evidence is enough to reach the level of proof beyond a
2:07:43
Well, I but that's what I'm saying.
2:07:44
So when I when I hear you talking and answering the line of questioning around how much lower your substantiation claims are to the national averages.
2:07:55
And I and I say, well, the level of proof is a preponderance.
2:07:59
It means it just has to be just barely more likely than not to occur.
2:08:02
And then I also hear that the evidence that you are primarily rep relying on is the video monitoring and electronic tracking.
2:08:10
What I am then hearing is that that's not being done properly if an individual's testimony alone is not given the kind of weight it should be when again in a criminal proceeding, that alone absent any other kind of evidence can prove a case beyond reasonable doubt.
2:08:30
So to me, it sounds like the practice you're engaging in is is not is not adhering to the way that in our legal systems and legal proceedings, both criminal and civil, we look at and weigh and evaluate evidence.
2:08:46
And so my the thing that is troubling me is that it sounds like the individual testimony of survivors because they are incarcerated people.
2:08:56
That very strong powerful evidence is not being weighed the same way it would be weighed for others.
2:09:04
And that's a problem.
2:09:05
And I think that could partially explain the disparities between the national averages and what we're seeing here.
Ingris Martinez
2:05:56
Okay.
2:05:56
So the preponderance of the evidence is technically weighing out all the information in front of us.
2:06:01
And if the people behind me, if I'm trying to show them, if you use a scale, and it just tips over to 51%.
2:06:41
Based on the federal standards, it is the same.
2:06:43
Based on the preparedness of the evidence.
2:06:45
However, we're using monitoring devices.
2:06:49
So for example, if a victim claims that said personnel and said date, then we go back and look at the business records and prove that that person was not there.
2:07:38
reasonable doubt.
2:07:40
Correct.
2:07:40
And ours is much lower just based on the preponderance of that.