Two Witness Rule: Understanding Its Impact and Application

One challenge for prosecutors or reporters is knowing when you have enough evidence to charge or write. There is no absolute rule, but some version of the “two witness rule” has sometimes been used by federal courts, Woodward and Bernstein, and even the Bible, so it’s a good start and worth knowing!

The basic concept of the “two witness rule” is that a person cannot be convicted solely on the word of a single witness. If all you have is one person’s word against another’s, that is generally not good enough.

Historical Background and Legal Basis for the Two Witness Rule

This rule (or guideline) has a long history – it appears in the Hebrew Bible, which Christians call the Old Testament. In Deuteronomy, Moses sets out the rule for the Israelites in two slightly different formulations:

“On the evidence of two or three witnesses, the death sentence shall be executed; a person must not be put to death on the evidence of only one witness.” Deuteronomy 17:6.

“A single witness shall not suffice to convict a person of any crime or wrongdoing in connection with any offense that may be committed. Only on the evidence of two or three witnesses shall a charge be sustained.” Deuteronomy 19:15.

The Two Witness Rule's Decline in Modern Legal Systems

In modern times, this idea has declined in importance.

In the United States, the “rule” does not hold as a matter of law in most types of criminal cases – one witness theoretically can be enough to support an arrest or a conviction, even when the witness is an accomplice who might have a great incentive to lie. As one court put it, “Even the testimony of a single accomplice witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction, provided it is not ‘incredible on its face,’ or does not ‘def[y] physical realities.”

The Two Witness Rule in Perjury Cases

However, the “rule” still holds explicit for one type of criminal case – perjury cases under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1621 for false testimony in a federal case.

In a 1945 case, the United States Supreme Court noted that the “two witness rule” for perjury cases was “deeply rooted in past centuries” and that its application in federal and state courts was “well nigh universal.” In perjury cases, the rule requires (1) the direct testimony of a second witness and/or (2) other evidence that is independent of the first witness and corroborates the first witness. (Lawyers should note that the rule generally does not apply to prosecutions for other types of false statements, such as prosecutions under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001).

Practical Value Beyond Legal Requirements

While the “two witness rule” is now minimal as a matter of law, it still has great practical value.

Reporters usually want at least two sources for key assertions, especially controversial points that could be disputed. (I did back when I was a newspaper reporter)

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein refer to this in their classic book, All The President’s Men. As the reporters investigated Watergate, they had difficulty getting their sources to confirm what had happened and thus had to be careful about what went into print. “Gradually, an unwritten rule was evolving: unless two sources confirmed a charge involving activity likely to be considered criminal, the specific allegation was not used in the paper.”

If prosecutors relied on a single witness, they would probably have difficulty proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt. This affected my practice as a lawyer in two ways.

First, I generally look for ways to corroborate a witness whenever possible. When I was a prosecutor and met with a witness in a white-collar criminal case, I often would check the data or documents immediately afterward to see if I could corroborate at least part of what the witness said. As a defense lawyer, I’ve sometimes found that prosecutors took their witnesses at face value without checking independent evidence that should have raised significant doubts about whether their witnesses were reliable.

Second, as a prosecutor, I was always trained to have someone with me when I interviewed a witness. This way, if we ever needed to prove what a witness said or did not say, I would have someone there to back me up. Having a “prover” makes it easier to establish what happened and prevents situations from devolving into one person’s word against another’s (it also reduces the potential for situations where I might become a witness myself).

By the way, many TV shows and movies get this wrong about real-life investigations; FBI agents typically work in pairs, in part so that there will be two witnesses, not one, if something significant happens or is said.

The “two witness rule” is now minimal as a “rule,” but it’s still a helpful guide when reading news articles and considering criminal cases.

Be skeptical if you read a news article relying only on one source, especially if the source is anonymous or did not personally observe the events the source describes.

Be very skeptical if you see a criminal case that centers on an event where only the defendant and one other person were present.

The number of witnesses no longer matters as a strict rule of law, but an article or case resting on a single source should have perfect corroboration.

---

Stephen Chahn Lee has written about the intersection of pop culture and the law for his entire legal career, most recently in “Modern Detection,” which focuses on lessons drawn from real-life and fictional investigations. Sherlock Holmes dreamed of writing a “textbook which shall focus the whole art of detection into one volume,” Stephen’s articles attempt to fulfill that dream in the modern age. Stephen’s analysis of the Sherlock Holmes stories has been featured in Harper’s magazine, and he was inducted in 2024 as a member of the Baker Street Irregulars.

For further insights on the Two Witness Rule or legal guidance on healthcare fraud defense, please contact Stephen Lee Law.

Sources

• All The President’s Men: Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, Chapter 4.

• Department of Justice Summary on the Two Witness Rule: Archived Department of Justice summary.

• Deuteronomy Quotes: New Oxford Annotated Bible, Third Edition.

• Second Circuit Case: United States v. Truman, 688 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2012). The court explained, “Even the testimony of a single accomplice witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction, provided it is not ‘incredible on its face,’ or does not ‘defy physical realities.’”

• Supreme Court Case: Weiler v. United States, 323 U.S. 606 (1945).

Miranda Rights: Debunking Common Legal Protection Myths

Tana French and Stephen King are remarkable storytellers. However, some of their characters incorrectly portray a vital legal principle, mirroring a common real-life misunderstanding. Many people believe they understand their Miranda rights based on TV representations, but often, they're mistaken, which can lead to severe consequences.

Common Misunderstandings About Miranda Rights

A study involving college students and inmates revealed widespread misconceptions about rights in the criminal justice system:

• Approximately 30% thought their silence could be used against them, which is incorrect.

• Over half believed that police are not allowed to lie during interrogations; however, police can lie.

• More than half believed that Miranda rights apply only when in custody; in reality, they are always applicable.

The Reality of Miranda Rights in Law Enforcement

A crucial misunderstanding is regarding when police are required to inform you of your Miranda rights. This differs from what some characters in Tana French’s "Dublin Murder Squad" series and Stephen King’s "Bill Hodges" trilogy suggest.

Fictional Depictions vs. Legal Reality

Major spoilers for "In the Woods" and minor spoilers for "Mr. Mercedes" and "Finders Keepers" illustrate these points.

Scene from Tana French’s In the Woods

Tana French’s In the Woods focuses on two detectives trying to solve the murder of a 12-year-old girl. The detectives eventually learn that Katharine was murdered by a man who confesses that he had conspired with the victim’s older sister, Rosalind, to do the crime.

Detective Cassie Maddox talks to Rosalind during a walk outside, using a pretext to begin the talk and try to get a confession. Once Maddox receives Rosalind to begin admitting her involvement in the murder, Maddox gives Rosalind a caution (Ireland’s equivalent of the Miranda warning used in the United States):

“If you keep talking,” Cassie snapped, too loudly, “I’m going to caution you.  Otherwise –“ …

“So,” Rosalind resumed.  “I decided the best thing would be to show Katy that she wasn’t really anything that special.  She certainly wasn’t very intelligent.  When I gave her something to –“

“You are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so,” Cassie broke in, her voice shaking wildly, “but anything you say will be taken down in writing and may be used in evidence.”

Rosalind pauses for a long time. Maddox manages to get the conversation back on track and gets Rosalind to admit her involvement in the murder. Maddox then arrests Rosalind on suspicion of murdering Katharine, and the police bring Rosalind to the station. 

The investigation then falls apart with Rosalind's question: “Don’t minors have the right to have a parent or a guardian present during an interview?”

The detectives check Rosalind’s age and discover that she is 17 years old, a few weeks short of her 18th birthday:

“Inadmissible,” [Maddox] said.  “Every fucking word.”

Without the confession, the case against Rosalind is weak and falls apart. However, in real life, Rosalind’s confession is not as flawed as the book recounts and probably would have been admissible, at least in the United States.

Throughout the United States, police give Miranda warnings to suspects, saying that they have the right to remain silent and the right to counsel. Many other countries use similar warnings, as the Library of Congress cataloged in a 2006 report. Ireland uses a “verbal caution” like the one that Detective Maddox recited to Rosalind.

The critical issue is when police have to give these warnings and cautions.

In the United States, police only give Miranda warnings when a person is in custody. Someone is in “custody” when a reasonable person would believe that they are not accessible to stop talking with police and simply walk away, such as when a person is arrested. Ireland, similarly, requires that caution be given when a person is arrested.

The United States and Ireland do not require that a person be warned or cautioned when they are not in custody, even if the police believe that the person is a suspect. Detective Maddox had not arrested Rosalind; they were talking in a public setting, and Rosalind was free to stop the conversation and leave at any time. Accordingly, Detective Maddox did not have to give Rosalind a caution, and Rosalind’s confession should have been admissible even if no caution had been given.

In the United States, Rosalind’s confession would probably still have been admissible because she had not been in custody. In federal courts, law enforcement agents are required to notify parents when a juvenile is detained, but they are not required to inform parents before interviewing a minor suspect. Similarly, while many states require parental notification for a custodial interview, a survey in 2000 found that most states do not require parental notification for a non-custodial interview.

The timing of Miranda warnings also comes up in Stephen King’s excellent Bill Hodges trilogy. Characters in both books incorrectly reference when Miranda warnings should be given.

In Mr. Mercedes, Bill secretly investigates a cold case and withholds evidence from his old partner, who starts to suspect what Bill is doing. “I want to interview you again this afternoon,” Bill’s partner says. “And this time, I may have to read you the words.” 

In reality, Bill’s partner would only have to read the words to Bill if Bill was in custody, not just because he was suspected of a crime. 

In Finders Keepers, Bill is a private investigator and tries to reassure a teenager that nothing the teenager says can be used against him:  “Even if I was still a cop, this conversation would be inadmissible in court. You’re a minor, and there’s no responsible present to counsel you. In addition, I never gave you the words – the Miranda warning.”

In reality, the teenager in Finders Keepers would only have to read the words if he was detained by a police officer, not just because he agreed to talk to a private detective or was suspected of a crime.

Why Understanding Miranda Rights is Crucial

Why does this matter? It matters because people should always be careful about talking to law enforcement, whatever the circumstances, whether or not police have said “the words” or cautioned you. What you say can be held against you, and a mistake or misstep in what you say can get you in trouble that you could have avoided otherwise. 

I’ve practiced criminal law for more than 15 years, and I’ve seen innocent people get prosecuted in part for things they said when they should have invoked their rights to silence and counsel. Once, back when I was a prosecutor, I took over a case with an alleged “confession,” but I suspected it was more like the “confession” in My Cousin Vinny. I investigated this, confirmed my suspicions, and dismissed the case. Fortunately, the defendant had not been in jail while the charge hung over her head.

Advice for Interacting with Law Enforcement

If you are approached by law enforcement, the safest answer is probably: “I’m willing to cooperate but want to consult with a lawyer first.”  That should shut down the inquiry and protect you while being somewhat polite.

The Variability of Miranda Warnings

One final thing about Miranda! Another big misconception is that all Miranda warnings are the same. The U.S. Supreme Court set out the basic concepts, but hundreds of variations are used nationwide. Here is my take on what a suitable Miranda warning would look like:

1. You have the right to remain silent.

   • If you remain silent, your silence cannot be used against you in a criminal trial or case. 

   • If you choose to speak, anything you say could be used against you later, so it’s essential to be as accurate and truthful as possible.  

2. You have the right to counsel.

   • You can consult with a lawyer before answering any questions.

   • You can have a lawyer present with you while answering any questions.

   • You can seek a court-appointed lawyer for free if you cannot afford to hire one. 

   • If you say, “I want a lawyer,” law enforcement cannot ask any questions until you consult a lawyer.

3. If you waive your rights, you can re-assert them later but not take back anything you said.

---

Stephen Chahn Lee has written about the intersection of pop culture and the law for his entire legal career, most recently in “Modern Detection,” which focuses on lessons drawn from real-life and fictional investigations. Sherlock Holmes dreamed of writing a “textbook which shall focus the whole art of detection into one volume,” Stephen’s articles attempt to fulfill that dream in the modern age. Stephen’s analysis of the Sherlock Holmes stories has been featured in Harper’s magazine, and he was inducted in 2024 as a member of the Baker Street Irregulars.

For further insights on Miranda Rights or legal guidance on healthcare fraud defense, please contact Stephen Lee Law.

Sources

Rogers, Richard, Rogstad, Jill E., Gillard, Nathan D., Drogin, Eric Y., Blackwood, Hayley L., and Shuman, Daniel W. (2010). Everyone Knows Their Miranda Rights: Implicit Assumptions and Conflicting Evidence.

Conway, Vicky, Daly, Yvonne, and Schweppe, Jennifer. Irish Criminal Justice: Theory, Process and Procedure.

In re Watson, 47 Ohio St.3d 86 (Ohio 1989). The Ohio Supreme Court's decision regarding the parental notification requirement before the custodial interrogation of a minor.

Additional acknowledgment:

Special thanks to Dr. Eric Drogin for insights on Miranda rights and legal consultations.

Right to Counsel: The Importance of Defense Lawyers in Pop Culture

One scene in the new Star Wars series, Andor, has resonated with me because it confirms something I had long suspected: there are no defense lawyers in the Empire or at least no right to one. This is not surprising and a helpful reminder about how our fundamental rights should not be taken for granted.

The Right to Counsel: A Fictional and Historical Perspective

In episode 7, future rebel Cassian Andor is arrested when he catches the attention of an Imperial trooper in the wrong place at the wrong time. He then appears alone before an Imperial judge facing sham charges of “civil disruption,” “anti-imperial speech,” “fleeing the scene of anti-imperial activity,” and “attempted damage to Imperial property.” And within seconds, he is sentenced to six years’ imprisonment.

Scene from Andor, Episode 7.

Lawyers matter, and empires prosper without lawyers.

Fiction has depicted this in multiple ways.

Shakespeare to 'Star Wars': The Evolution of Legal Defense

Shakespeare’s famous line from Henry VI, 'The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers,' often viewed as a criticism of lawyers, is argued by Justice John Paul Stevens, among others, to demonstrate their value. The line is spoken by Dick the Butcher, a “rebel, not a friend of liberty,” Stevens wrote in a 1985 opinion. “Shakespeare realized that disposing of lawyers is a step toward a totalitarian form of government.”

Whether or not Stevens was correct, the role of lawyers has changed considerably since Shakespeare’s time when there was no right to counsel in a criminal case. English courts prohibited people from having defense counsel in felony cases until changes from the late 1600s through the 1830s. Lawyers now play a much more significant part in defending individual liberty than in Shakespeare’s time.

For a more modern fictional example of the importance of lawyers, think about how different the Harry Potter books would have been if the wizarding world had lawyers, a curious omission from the original books. A minor forced to participate in a dangerous tournament without consent (Book 4, Chapter 17)? Then, set up by a corrupt/misguided government agency to participate in a sham disciplinary hearing without due process or proper notice (Book 5, Chapters 7 and 8)? A decent lawyer could have saved Harry from a lot of trouble.

Now, we have Star Wars to add to the list of popular cultural depictions of the importance of a lawyer in protecting individual liberty.

The right to counsel is now almost universally acknowledged in the real world. The U.S. State Department issues reports yearly about human rights, showing that just about every country recognizes the right to retain counsel. Some exceptions are notable:

• North Korea: According to the U.S. State Department, the constitution reportedly states that the accused has a right to a defense, but only in some instances. “KIN’s White Paper for 2020 cited defector testimony that the ministry decided imprisonment in political prison camps exclusively, regardless of trial. There was no indication that independent, nongovernmental defense lawyers existed. There were no indications authorities respected the presumption of innocence.”

• Sudan: According to the U.S. State Department, “Throughout the year, some defendants reportedly did not receive legal counsel, and counsel in some cases could only advise the defendant and not address the court. Persons detained in connection with pro-democracy protests were routinely denied counsel. Persons in remote and conflict areas generally did not have access to legal counsel. The government sometimes did not allow defense witnesses to testify.”

• China: According to the U.S. State Department, “[a]uthorities used the state secrets provision to keep politically sensitive proceedings closed to the public, sometimes even to family members, and to withhold a defendant’s access to defense counsel.”

Challenges and Limitations in Global Legal Systems

While the right to retain counsel is almost universally acknowledged, the right to have appointed counsel if you cannot afford a lawyer is not. The United States recognized the right to counsel in the Bill of Rights but did not recognize the right to appointed counsel until the landmark Supreme Court case of Gideon v. Wainwright (1963). Many countries still do not recognize this right, or they limit it to certain types of criminal cases.

Like the right to retained counsel, the right to be free of arbitrary arrest is almost universally acknowledged. Unfortunately, according to the U.S. State Department’s reports, many countries do not regularly respect or observe that right even if they claim to. And here is what the State Department says about a few particular countries:

• China: “Arbitrary arrest and detention remained systemic. The law grants public security officers broad administrative detention powers and the ability to detain individuals for extended periods without formal arrest or criminal charges. Lawyers, human rights activists, journalists, religious leaders and adherents, and former political prisoners and their family members continued to be targeted for arbitrary detention or arrest.”

• Burma: “The law does not prohibit arbitrary arrest. Persons held generally did not have the right to appeal the legality of their arrest or detention either administratively or before a court.”

• Tajikistan: “Arbitrary arrests were common, and the law does not prohibit the practice.”

The Imperative Role of Defense Lawyers

As Cassian Andor’s situation should remind us, defense lawyers matter. I believed this when I was a prosecutor, and I believe it again now that I am a defense lawyer.

As a prosecutor, I had good intentions and believed I was doing the right thing. But even so, defense lawyers were a vital check. I knew that my cases had to hold up to the scrutiny of another lawyer who would evaluate the evidence from another point of view. He forced me to build better cases and to be more careful in bringing charges. On the rare occasion when I was unaware of a crucial fact or got something wrong, I was grateful to the defense attorneys who held me accountable and helped me fix the situation.

When I defend someone, I help them through some of the most challenging circumstances they have ever faced. We managed to help address some injustices—for example, I once helped clear two people in a fraud trial by getting a government witness to acknowledge that those people were not at a meeting the government had implied they attended.

In Star Wars, the Empire did many terrible things, such as destroying an entire planet and using slave labor. d now, thanks to the Andor TV series, we know a bit more about how it could get away with those things – if the Empire ever had lawyers, it followed Dick the Butcher’s advice and got rid of them.

---

Stephen Chahn Lee has written about the intersection of pop culture and the law for his entire legal career, most recently in “Modern Detection,” which focuses on lessons drawn from real-life and fictional investigations. Sherlock Holmes dreamed of writing a “textbook which shall focus the whole art of detection into one volume,” Stephen’s articles attempt to fulfill that dream in the modern age. Stephen’s analysis of the Sherlock Holmes stories has been featured in Harper’s magazine, and he was inducted in 2024 as a member of the Baker Street Irregulars.

For further insights on the Right to Counsel or legal guidance on healthcare fraud defense, please contact Stephen Lee Law.

Sources

• Langbein, John H. The Origins of Adversary Criminal Trial. Oxford University Press, 2003. A scholarly examination of the development of the adversary system in criminal trials.

• Lewis, Anthony. Gideon's Trumpet. Vintage Books, 1964. Chronicles the landmark case Gideon v. Wainwright and its impact on the right to counsel.

• Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). Explores a partial history of the right to counsel in the United States.

• U.S. State Department. “2021 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.” Available online at State Department Reports. Special acknowledgment to karladaniela715 for assistance in data collection.

• Walters v. National Association of Radiation Survivors, 473 U.S. 305 (1985). Discussion by Justice Stevens on Shakespeare's portrayal of lawyers.

Follow the Money: Uncovering the Watergate Scandal Through $1300 in Clues

“Follow the money.”

This is the advice given by the confidential source known as “Deep Throat” to Bob Woodward in the movie version of “All the President’s Men.”  Good, solid advice that investigators of financial crimes have been following for years.

To show how this kind of investigation worked, here is a look at how one of the most famous examples of “following the money” unfolded.

Uncovering the Financial Trail

Let’s begin with the money itself.

On June 17, 1972, five men were arrested for breaking into the Democratic National Committee’s offices at the Watergate complex in Washington DC.  They were not typical burglars – they were dressed in suits and ties, and they had 39 rolls of film, bugging equipment, and about $5,400 in $100 bills (about $40,000 in 2022 dollars), along with keys to nearby rooms where even more cash was found. (The picture below shows what was found on one burglar - Bernard Barker aka Frank Carter - when arrested, including two $100 bills and other currency).

Government Exhibit 10F, Watergate Investigation

This raised lots of questions, beginning with, “Where did all that money come from?”

The Role of “Follow the Money”

Fortunately, government investigators were able to track some of the bills backward using serial numbers – each bill of U.S. currency has a unique combination of eleven numbers and letters. This usually is very difficult, but the bills found at the Watergate were new and in sequential order – they had just been delivered by the Federal Reserve Bank less than two months earlier and had just been introduced into circulation.

Serial numbers showed that many of the bills had been withdrawn by one of the five burglars - Bernard Barker (aka Frank Carter, the name he initially gave when arrested) – weeks earlier on May 2 and 9 from a bank account in Florida. 

This much was shown in a trial exhibit from the first Watergate trial, which occurred in early 1973 and involved two defendants (not Barker, who pled guilty).

Government Exhibit 177-A, Watergate Investigation

But that still did not answer the big question about where the money came from. 

That took further work and quickly came out in newspaper articles and a report by the General Accounting Office (GAO), which does non-partisan research for Congress and executive agencies and is now known as the Government Accountability Office.

Most of the money that Barker withdrew matched precisely four checks that all appeared to come from a Mexican lawyer, Manual Ogarrio Daguerre.

Investigative Breakthroughs

The New York Times reported this on July 31, 1972, in an article by Walter Rugaber (“Cash in Capital Raid Traced to Mexico”). According to the article, Ogarrio was in “delicate” health and could not speak, but a family member denied any connection to the checks and denied knowing Bernard Barker.

That could have been the end of this investigative angle, except for Carl Bernstein’s big scoop.

Bernstein had gone to Miami to talk to a prosecutor who was already looking into the burglars’ Miami connections. Upon arriving, he saw Rugaber’s article and thought about trying to fly to Mexico to learn more. No, editor Barry Sussman told him. See if you can find anything more from the prosecutor.

Bernstein dug in and eventually learned about one more check that had been deposited into Barker’s bank account. This was what became known as the Dahlberg check, after Kenneth Dahlberg, to whom the $25,000 cashier’s check (almost $200,000 in 2022 dollars) had been made out.

The Money Trail Deepens

Carl Bernstein passed this information to fellow reporter Bob Woodward, who managed to reach Dahlberg by phone.

Dahlberg admitted to Woodward that he had “accumulated some cash” “in the process of fundraising” and getting a cashier’s check made out to himself. He said that he gave the check-in in early April to one of two people who were high up in President Nixon’s re-election effort.

That’s as far as Woodward and Bernstein were able to get on July 31, 1972, but further investigation was able to follow the Dahlberg check and the Ogarrio checks even further back. Based on the press reports, the General Accounting Office opened its investigation and interviewed Dahlberg and other Nixon campaign officials.

On August 26, the GAO issued its report concluding that the Nixon re-election committee had failed to keep required records and referring the matter to the Department of Justice for possible prosecution.

Chronology of the Investigation

Here is the chronology, as constructed from the articles, the GAO report, and subsequent accounts (and as shown in the chart accompanying this article):

• April 5, 1972. According to what campaign treasurer Hugh Sloan told the GAO in August 1972, Sloan received the checks that were written in the name of Manuel Ogarrio and that the checks were campaign contributions from donors in Texas who wished to remain anonymous.

• April 7. New legal provisions go into effect that require disclosure of campaign contributions from this date onwards.

• April 9. Corporate executive Dwayne Andreas gives $25,000 in cash to Dahlberg in Miami. Dahlberg later told the GAO that Andreas had spoken days earlier about making the gift.

• April 10. Dahlberg has a cashier’s check for $25,000 made out to himself in Florida.

• April 11. Dahlberg endorses the Dahlberg check and delivers it to the re-election finance committee’s chair, Maurice Stans. Stans gives the check to Sloan, who says he gave it to G. Gordon Liddy, along with the four Texas-Ogarrio checks.

• April 20. The Dahlberg check and the Texas-Ogarrio checks are deposited into Barker’s account along with the four checks in the name of Manuel Ogarrio, totaling $114,000.

• April 21 to May 8. Barker withdraws $114,000 in cash, including more than a hundred $100 bills.

• Middle of May. According to Sloan, Liddy provides some of the funds from the five checks to Sloan. Sloan said that the total was significantly less than the total combined value of $115,000. 

• June 17. Barker, Frank Sturgis, Eugenio Martinez, and Virgilio Gonalzes (four of the five burglars) are arrested with new $100 bills in their possession, and more $100 bills are found in a room to which they had a key.

• Days after the robbery. Liddy shreds the remaining $100 bills.

Conclusion: Following the Money’s Impact

Ultimately, “following the money” opened up much more of the Watergate scandal, eventually leading to many charges and convictions that have been overshadowed by other aspects.

Based on my own experience investigating as a reporter and as a lawyer, I’ve written and spoken about how lawyers can use data to conduct better investigations, and I’ve used this Watergate example to discuss one approach. “Track something,” I said. See how things develop over time, and pay attention to the details.  

If you’re doing a healthcare fraud case, track a few patients over time and make sure you understand what happened and why. In one type of case that I handled when I was a federal prosecutor, doing this uncovered additional crimes and defendants and changed how my office handled such cases.

If you’re reviewing emails and find a good email or a particularly significant event, don’t just rely on search terms. Read all the emails surrounding that email and see if you can reconstruct the entire conversation. 

And, of course, follow the money. Where did it come from? What was it used for? And where did it all end up?

---

Stephen Chahn Lee has written about the intersection of pop culture and the law for his entire legal career, most recently in “Modern Detection,” which focuses on lessons drawn from real-life and fictional investigations. Sherlock Holmes dreamed of writing a “textbook which shall focus the whole art of detection into one volume,” Stephen’s articles attempt to fulfill that dream in the modern age. Stephen’s analysis of the Sherlock Holmes stories has been featured in Harper’s magazine, and he was inducted in 2024 as a member of the Baker Street Irregulars.

For further insights on the Watergate Scandal or legal guidance on healthcare fraud defense, please contact Stephen Lee Law.

Sources:

• Bernstein, Carl, and Bob Woodward. All the President’s Men. 1974.

• Bernstein, Carl, and Bob Woodward. “Bug Suspect Got Campaign Funds.” Washington Post, August 1, 1972.

• General Accounting Office / Government Accountability Office. “Audit of the Finance Committee to Re-Elect the President.” August 26, 1972.

• Graff, Garrett M. Watergate: A New History. 2022.

• Rugaber, Walter. “Cash in Capital Raid Traced to Mexico.” New York Times, July 31, 1972.

• U.S. v. Liddy Trial Records, Government Exhibits. National Archives. https://www.archives.gov/research/investigations/watergate/us-v-liddy-trial-records-government-exhibits.