By Joshua Luke Sandoval
Assistant Criminal District Attorney in Bexar County
Any aficionado of fine film has surely viewed the great picture Cool Hand Luke. While I was watching the film recently, one scene stood out to me: The prison captain, having engaged in a fit of brutality, looks at the protagonist and utters, “What we’ve got here is failure to communicate.”
While the captain’s statement was clearly intended to justify his misguided and violent outburst, this scene still got me thinking about communication. Whether we are a victim’s advocate, investigator, support staffer, or prosecutor, clear communication is of vital importance to our work. We communicate in different ways, with different people, and with different goals in mind. While there are numerous ways to convey ideas, this article will focus on four: email, phone calls, in person conversations, and text messages.
If your inbox is like mine, you are likely to receive 70-plus emails a day, each with different degrees of importance. As such, I must stress the importance of staying on top of your inbox as much as possible. Letting unread emails linger can result in lost information, missed deadlines, or even important witnesses losing interest in a case.
Email, as a form of communication, has many benefits. First, it affords the writer more time to construct the message. Emails can be more easily structured and organized, and one can contemplate the message before hitting send. In some ways, they are not too distinct from a grocery list in that one gets to assess the need, plan ahead, and organize an approach.
Emails can be deliberate and complete communication. Perhaps more so than other means, email is best at memorializing important pieces of information or a meeting. They leave little doubt as to what decisions were made and the appropriate course of action to be taken.
When to use email: If you have a great deal of information to convey, if organization is of key importance, if you need to send the same message to multiple people, or if you need to return to a message for follow-up, email is the right choice. In my work, it is a great way of following up with my team (ADA colleagues, victim advocate, and investigator) after a docket meeting.
When to avoid it: Email’s strengths as a tool may prove rather useless in other situations. Its specificity and capacity to communicate multiple points may come across as impersonal, cold, or sterile in certain situations—for example, in contacting a victim or next of kin for the first time. Another weakness is its inefficiency with time-sensitive requests, which is likely due to how rapidly messages pile up in our inboxes. If you have a quick, single-issue message or inquiry from someone you know well, email is likely not the best choice.
Good practices for email: Carbon copying (CCing) colleagues is a helpful tool to keep multiple people in the information loop. Be sure to let recipients know to respond only to you (the sender) and not the group when that’s what you’re looking for. When you are the recipient of a carbon copied message, think twice before “replying to all,” as it can unnecessarily flood email inboxes. Nobody likes opening their inbox seeing 50 emails comprised of “I’m in” and “Can’t make it.”
If you find yourself in a position of needing to send a mass email that doesn’t require a response (perhaps a notice of sorts), then blind copy (BC) may be a good option, as it prevents recipients from replying to everybody.
Phone conversations
Who doesn’t enjoy a good old-fashioned phone conversation? Even many of my younger colleagues readily admit that phone conversations are well-suited for time-sensitive issues. Despite so many other options, telephones still play a very important role in our daily communication because they capture tone and emotion, happen in real-time, and permit immediate clarification and inquiry.
When to pick up the phone: Contacting people on the telephone is often my preferred method when reaching out to individuals outside my office. If I have a quick question for a defense attorney (about something that isn’t so important it should be memorialized in an email), a call is the most efficient means. Just the other day, I dialed an attorney to inquire if she was OK that we ask the judge for an hour apiece for voir dire on an upcoming trial. Using the phone worked perfectly as it was a simple enough matter that didn’t really need intense documentation.[1]
Serving as an embedded attorney at a Texas Anti-Gang center, I work very closely with numerous law enforcement agencies and prosecutors from other jurisdictions. As such, it is not unusual for me to be conferring with one agency when, suddenly, the need for a quick bit of information arises. Often, a phone call is the most efficacious means of procuring the tidbit and passing it along.
When to avoid it: In my experience, phone calls (on their own) are not the best option if you want to make sure conversations are memorialized. Additionally, they can’t necessarily cover a topic, or multiple topics, in depth. However, you can always follow a phone call with an email. This email should encapsulate the salient points of the phone conversation, including the time, date, and purpose of the call, so that both parties are on the same page and the danger of miscommunication is minimized. Doing so also serves as a good reference point so that both parties can look back later.
If you are trying to convey some important or difficult information to a victim or next of kin (for example, preliminary meetings or discussions on proceeding on a case), a phone conversation may come across as less empathetic or even unprofessional, depending on the circumstances. It is my usual practice to avoid phone conversations in these situations. I personally believe that phone communications are incapable of imparting the personal and empathetic touch such situations require, and face-to-face meetings are the better option.
Good practices for the phone: Any discussion of phone conversations requires mention of etiquette regarding the notorious speakerphone. In a professional context, speakerphone is appropriate in precious few circumstances. If a call has multiple participants and it’s treated as a conference call, there can be a place for speakerphone, but only with some very important considerations in place. Make sure everyone knows the call is on speaker, that all parties can adequately hear, and that the call is taking place in a professional and private setting (e.g., a closed conference room or office). On a personal note, I absolutely disdain speakerphone because there is too much interference, and I find that it is much more prone to miscommunications. I often find myself engaging in an annoying game of “Can you repeat that?” and “I’m sorry but you broke up.” Even if your door is closed, the person you’re calling may still feel uneasy at the possibility of his words being broadcast down the hallway.
Sometimes I want a hands-free option when on a call that my landline or cell phone just cannot afford (e.g., where I want to take notes as the conversation is happening). Rather than using speakerphone in such cases, I simply plug in my headphones and take care of business.
In addition, I have found it best to plan a time for a phone call. If the reason for the call is not a spontaneous need for information, try to schedule an appointment that is mutually convenient for both participants; this gives the parties preparation time while also avoiding phone tag.
In-person meetings
In terms of maximizing different methods of communication, nothing can beat an in-person meeting. It enables all parties to communicate not just with words (as an email would) and persuasive usages of tone (like a telephone conversation does), but it also permits visual cues (such as demonstratives, purposeful movement, facial expressions, etc.). In-person meetings can be dynamic, effective at disseminating information, and less likely to cause misunderstandings.
When to meet in person: As a prosecutor, I use in-person meetings for the most important interactions with victims, next of kin, and witnesses. Meeting in-person conveys the gravity of the situation and shows them that their trauma is important to me and my office. In-person meetings also tend to make participants more comfortable and thus more willing to discuss their trauma or recollection of events. It enables me to control the speed of the conversation and meet individuals where they are. I can also see the other person’s face and detect any confusion when I am explaining something. If I notice pain or fear, I can slow things down or maybe move to another topic altogether.
In addition to initial meetings, I prefer to meet with victims and next of kin when circumstances have drastically changed the feasibility of proceeding on a case. If you have a case with a victim who was profoundly impacted by a crime and you find yourself needing to alter the offer (that you ideally discussed at a preliminary meeting) or perhaps even dismiss a case, then an in-person meeting is almost always the best course of action.
In my experience, in-person meetings are not just useful for victims. Some of the same advantages translate to communicating with our colleagues, too. When I prosecuted child sex cases, I found biweekly meetings with my team to be very useful, as these gatherings helped us stay on top of important cases. They also fostered frank and candid discussion that would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, over email or the phone.
When to avoid it: Live meetings take longer and can be more difficult to schedule. We are in a profession in which time is a valuable commodity, and in-person meetings are more time-consuming and take us away from our other duties.
Such meetings can be difficult for victims and witnesses. Whereas a phone conversation or even email can be taken care of during a lunch break or when work is slow, an in-person interview is different. Most witnesses find it less than pleasant to take time off work, drive downtown, and fight for parking, all just to discuss a traumatic event in their lives.
Good practices for meetings: “This meeting could have been an email!” is a sentiment so pervasive, it is basically a cliché. Remember that just because some information could be disseminated in an email doesn’t mean that it is the best choice. Often, in-person meetings are valuable to minimize distractions and to discuss sensitive topics with a team—they can even be a good boost to morale.
Creating an agenda, even if informal, is a great way to ensure the meeting stays on track. Discussing at the beginning of the meeting what things need to be covered starts it off on the right foot and sets expectations. Furthermore, asking something like, “Is there anything else on this topic before we move onto X?” elicits input from participants and transitions to the next agenda item. In addition, time limits for meetings can make sure they don’t turn into runaway trains. Just be cautious that a time limit doesn’t cut off productive discussion.
Text messages
Text messages are quick, convenient, and often the most subtle means of communication. Almost all of us have been in court and have needed to send a message immediately. Texting can be the quickest, quietest way of getting a message out.
When to send a text: Text messages are best utilized when conveying simple information or requests that leave little to interpretation. If I am in a docket and a case is going to plea, I may text my victim’s advocate asking her to inform the victim that the case will be resolved.[2] Similarly, I have had many instances where we are on a short break during trial (so short it doesn’t make sense to return to my office) where I send texts to advocates or investigators to check on the status of witnesses.
When to avoid it: Text messages can prove troublesome if they are pushed past their limits. I refrain from texting when I need to convey anything more than a simple point of inquiry or a single fact. Like email, text messaging focuses on only the written word. Unlike email, its abbreviated format can lend itself to missed information, miscommunication, or the misunderstanding that the curtness of the message means the sender is mad at the recipient. The reduced formality of text messaging can also come across as unprofessional in some settings.
Good practices for texting: Texts can be very easily overlooked and they are reliant on cooperative reception. Try as I might, it’s still easy to forget to act on a text after reading it. Additionally, not everyone is glued to their cell phones in eager anticipation of your message. Texting is quick and often convenient, but replying isn’t always convenient for the recipient.
Another aspect of text messages to be aware of is the importance of proofreading. I make liberal use of voice dictation, and sometimes it feels like my phone is conspiring against me to jumble up my message. No matter how clearly I think I speak, my phone possesses the uncanny ability to concoct a less-than-coherent message instead. Often, the time I intend to save using voice dictation is dashed by the edits and corrections that are required. Proofreading a message helps avoid miscommunication and subsequent clarification.
Closing thoughts
Communicating is more than just the information conveyed. So much of successful communication depends on the timing and means of transmission. Each form that we touched on has its own strengths and weaknesses, and knowing the best manner and the appropriate time to communicate has a direct impact on the successful transmission of an idea. We have a slew of important messages to convey to witnesses, colleagues, and victims and numerous tools to do it. If you weigh your options, recognize your audience, and study your circumstances, you can avoid future “failures to communicate.”
[1] Whereas I would have been crushed if opposing counsel later denied the conversation with me, it wouldn’t have had a huge impact on the prosecution of my case. Furthermore, one can always log the conversation in a brief sentence or two in your office’s case management system.
[2] This is usually only a good option if the resolution is what you have already discussed with the complainant. If there is a grave deviation from what you have discussed with your victim advocate, a text message may not fully capture the information that you will need to convey to the complainant.