Elder-abuse prosecution guru sheds light on crimes

Paul Greenwood is an elder abuse prosecutor in San Diego County and chair of the California District Attorneys Association's Committee on Elder Abuse. Greenwood is considered the state's guru on the subject, and he recently spoke with Judy Campbell of KQED public radio about how the criminal justice system is changing the way it handles crimes against the elderly.

Q. What type of cases do you see most often?

A: The most common and easily the most prosecutable is what I call "caretaker theft." There is so much of that going on, and the number one reason is because unfortunately in California, we still don't require caregivers to have mandated background checks. So what you're seeing is a large number of felons coming out of prison or county jail getting jobs working as caregivers for elders. So they are stealing the jewelry, they're stealing the coin collections, taking the checks, forging the signatures, applying for credit cards, and so forth. Following that are the scams, door-to-door crooks who are trying to sell painting or driveway or roofing materials.

Q: The Norman Roussey case in San Mateo County seems more complicated to prosecute.

A: This case in San Mateo is very typical of the third type (of financial abuse), what we call a "case of undue influence." Every credit has to be given to Melissa McKowan as the prosecutor for sticking to her task because there is no existing law which says you can commit theft by exerting undue influence. And what Melissa did so effectively in her case was to introduce the judge and the jury to the concept of undue influence, which is ingrained in civil procedure but is not familiar in criminal territory. She was able to bridge the gap there and establish that this guy had stolen from his victims by exerting undue influence.

Q: How new is McKowan's legal tactic of using undue influence in a criminal case?

A: Melissa is one of the first prosecutors to have a successful conviction.

Q: Norman Roussey willingly gave Brock money, so what would have been the recourse without this new legal tool McKowan used?

A: The crucial part of your question there, the word is "willingly gave him." As prosecutors, our argument is that in the case of real undue influence, the consent of the victim has been stripped away. Because of the insidious nature of the undue influence, the victim is no longer able to give a balanced, free will consent to the transactions. Whereas the defense will always say, "This was a gift. They wanted my client to have the money."

Q. The defendant's lawyer says using undue influence in the context of theft could set a dangerous precedent because it would criminalize the art of persuasion. He says car salesman, or people working for charities could be prosecuted for doing their job, which is to convince people to give more money.

A: Well, I would expect a defense lawyer to say that. As a prosecutor though, when I'm dealing with a vulnerable, aging person who has been isolated from resources and economically, somebody has taken full advantage of that vulnerability, I'm saying, "no." I think there comes a point where that becomes a crime of theft.

Q: Is it fair to say Roussey's case is being closely watched and maybe become a legal tool throughout the state and then the country?

A: I think it has been closely watched by her colleagues, those of us in the field of elder abuse.

Q. Do you have a lot of cases you feel can't be prosecuted now, but could be using this tool.

A: I see that everyday. We're making decisions where we feel we haven't got sufficient evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. And i think certainly undue influence is the one area that remains undefined and it takes a courageous prosecutor like Melissa to push the envelope and to believe in what she thinks is the correct interpretation of the existing law and to go for it and she did and did a very successful job. It will be very interesting to see if the court of appeals goes the other way and if it does, that's when the time will come for us to codify the law by getting some law passed.

Q: One of the biggest challenges for elder advocates is that many victims are reluctant to come forward. There are many agencies involved in the issue - Adult Protective Services, law enforcement, the district attorney's office - who is responsible for rooting out suspected elder abuse?

A: It's a combination of all those, and what we've tried to build on is getting everyone involved. For example, paramedics can be a tremendous resource because it is often paramedics who go out on a call and law enforcement has never been contacted. If you get paramedics on board, and they get to see the picture, then you're going to get a dramatic increase in the number of cases being reported to law enforcement. You go to what i call the "gatekeepers," the mail carriers, the Meals on Wheels people, and other people who deliver services from door to door.

Q: Some elder advocates have expressed concern that very aggressive prosecution may scare people away from befriending isolated and lonely older people.

A: Obviously it is a concern, and I remember one of the first cases of neglect I ever prosecuted, the judge came to me and said, "Greenwood, be careful you don't send the wrong message to the public because we don't want to make people reluctant to have contact with elders." But it's just the nature of the beast, we can't turn a blind eye to what's going on in the community with people who take full advantage of vulnerable elders. I can't be responsible for whatever message it sends. All I want to do is make the community aware that it's happening, and that if you commit it, we're going to go after you. And it's as simple as that.

Q: The number of elder abuse cases reported keeps going up in the state - is abuse more prevalent, is awareness increasing, what's going on?

A: I think generally speaking you're seeing a much better response and a bigger awareness among professional agencies. And of course, the other thing is that everyday more and more people come into this category of being defined as an elder. The reason, economically, is this: in California, we are seeing a lot elders who are in their mid-60s, leaving urban areas like the Bay Area and cashing in on their new-found wealth. And they're wealthy for one reason only. Their real estate gained value, and you may get somewhat unsophisticated elders with a lot of money for the first time in their lives. And the crooks are following them because that's where the money is.

Q: Is there also a change in society's attitude towards elder abuse?

A: Well, people are telling me that elder abuse today is where child abuse and domestic violence were 30 years ago. But I'm determined, and I know my colleagues are determined that it's not going to take us 30 years to get to where domestic violence is today in regards to awareness, to the protocols law enforcement have in place, and in regards to the fact that recanting victims of domestic violence don't get to choose whether or not to drop charges.

Q: Do you think law enforcement and prosecutors are active enough in going after these cases?

A: I've been prosecuting these kinds of crimes now for the past nine years and have seen a dramatic change in the way these crimes are being viewed. In the past, law enforcement tended to use any method to avoid having to deal with taking reports of these incidents. One of the main reasons for that was when I started nine years ago, law enforcement would tell me, "Oh, you don't want these cases because in our view, elderly people make for poor witnesses in court." But I'm telling them, give me a 95-year-old witness any day over a 16-year-old gang member. They make excellent witnesses. These are very credible crimes that need to be investigated.

c2005 ANG Newspapers. Cannot be used or repurposed without prior written permission.
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.