Peer Review for Major Cases: Keeping Homicide Investigations From Going Stale

Major case investigations usually succeed because people care. They fail because time, workload, assumptions, emergencies, and competing priorities begin to take over and eventually overwhelm investigators and agencies.

A homicide investigation may still matter to everyone in the building, but a new shooting comes in. Then a critical missing person case. Then a court deadline. Then another homicide. The original case is not forgotten, but the attention, energy, and resources that were present in the first few days can slowly fade.

Peer review will always strengthen a homicide investigation when done properly

That is where an intentional, structured peer review can make a difference.

When I was the commander of the Crimes Against Persons Bureau at a Major Cities department, we implemented a peer review process for major cases. We did not invent the idea. Agencies across the country have used case reviews for years. Multidisciplinary teams use them. Cold case teams use them. Child protection teams use them. Prosecutors, forensic teams, and major case squads have all used some version of this concept (Carter, 2013; Police Executive Research Forum, 2016).

What we wanted was not a new gimmick. We wanted a disciplined process that would help us improve investigative quality, maintain momentum, increase clearance rates, keep an important case at the forefront of the agency, and challenge the assumptions that can quietly build inside a major case (Carter, 2013).

Just as importantly, we wanted a process that incorporated elements of red teaming. In military, intelligence, and security environments, red teaming challenges prevailing assumptions, tests theories, identifies blind spots, and explores alternative explanations. Major case investigations benefit from the same mindset. Detectives need people who are willing to ask, "What if we're wrong?" or simply, "Did you consider..." before a case reaches a charging appointment.

We also did not implement peer review in isolation. It was part of a broader effort to improve the quality of investigations. We were rolling out more effective interviewing and interrogation with science-based interviewing across investigative units. We were training supervisors to understand evidence disclosure planning. We aimed for supervisors to assist detectives when interviews stalled, suspects were uncooperative, witnesses were reticent, or better strategies were needed beyond direct confrontation (the way interrogations had always been done).

Peer review became one piece of a larger investigative quality system. The results: we boosted fatal and non-fatal shooting clearance rates and improved case packet quality.

Peer Review Is Not About Blame

The first rule of any major case peer review is straightforward: the purpose is to improve the case, not to embarrass or put the detective in a difficult position.

If the process becomes a public critique session, people will hide problems. They will defend decisions. They will stop being honest about what has not been done, what they missed, or where they feel stuck.

A thorough peer review does the opposite. It creates a setting where investigators can say the following:

“We need help with this witness.”

“We have video, but we cannot connect the angles.”

“We have a suspect, but we do not have enough to arrest.”

“We still need to ID xyz.”

"We are looking for a male with this [nickname] in the area."

“We are assuming this vehicle is connected, but we have not proved it.”

That kind of honesty is hard to get in a command culture that treats uncertainty as weakness. But in major cases, uncertainty is often where the next lead and clearance lie.

Protect the Case Detective While Strengthening the Case

Peer review should expose weaknesses in the investigation, but it should never be used to embarrass the case detective.

If supervisors already know that a significant error was made, a required task was missed, or a performance issue needs to be addressed, they should speak with the case detective and appropriate section commanders before the peer review. Unless the issue must be discussed to protect the investigation or determine the next steps, the personnel matter should remain outside the meeting.

There is an important difference between asking, “What does this case still need?” and publicly asking, “Why did this detective make that mistake?”

The first question strengthens the investigation. The second may embarrass the detective, create defensiveness, discourage candor, and damage the willingness of others to bring unfinished cases into future reviews. Performance concerns should be handled through appropriate supervisory channels. The peer review should remain focused on improving the case.

Challenge the case vigorously. Protect the dignity of the person presenting it.

Senior Investigators Can Help Establish the Culture

When we conducted our first peer review, I was thankful that our most senior homicide detective agreed to present first. His participation sent an important message: peer review was not remedial, punitive, or reserved for detectives who were struggling. It was something experienced investigators used to make their cases stronger. Full stop.

That leadership mattered. Many people—even accomplished detectives—are uncomfortable speaking in front of a room. Presenting an unfinished investigation can create additional anxiety because the detective must discuss uncertainty, missing evidence, unsuccessful leads, and decisions that may look different in hindsight.

Having a respected senior detective go first helped establish the proper tone. It demonstrated that bringing a case forward was a mark of professionalism and confidence, not an admission of failure.

Supervisors implementing peer review should consider beginning with a respected and experienced investigator who understands the purpose and is willing to model leadership. That first presentation can shape how the entire process is perceived moving forward.

Invite the People Who Want to Help

Junior officers, newer detectives, and officers aspiring to become detectives often value the opportunity to participate in a major-case peer review. They gain insight into how complex investigations develop, while the case team gains additional people who are thinking about the investigation.

Their inclusion serves an operational purpose beyond professional development. Once officers know the people, vehicles, locations, nicknames, and unresolved questions connected to a case, that information stays with them while they patrol, investigate other offenses, conduct traffic stops, speak with residents, visit businesses, and interact with people in the area. A seemingly routine contact may produce a connection that would otherwise have gone unnoticed.

Peer review can be valuable in larger departments, where personnel and resources quickly move to the next emergency. A peer review returns the case to the attention of officers who continue working in the neighborhoods, social networks, and locations connected to the investigation.

Many junior personnel view experienced investigators as departmental leaders, whether those investigators carry supervisory rank or not. They respect the work and want to contribute. Peer review gives them a productive way to help while broadening the number of people who remain alert for information that could advance the case.

The case detective should not leave the meeting feeling judged or isolated. The detective should leave knowing that more people understand the case, more people are watching for information, and more of the department is invested in helping bring the investigation to a successful conclusion.

Why a Multidisciplinary Review Matters

A common mistake is to make homicide peer review an only-homicide or only sex crimes conversation. Homicide and sex crimes detectives must be in the room when their unit's cases are discussed, but they should not be the only voices.

We found value in bringing in multiple disciplines: phone forensics, crime scene investigators, patrol, analysts, homeless outreach, specialty units, street crimes, and even community policing or beat officers assigned to the area where the homicide occurred (Carter, 2013).

That broader group helped on several levels.

First, it kept the affected bureau engaged in large organizations. A homicide investigation can lose visibility once the next major call arrives. A structured review puts the case back in front of decision-makers, supervisors, commanders, and support units. It reminds everyone that the case is still active and still needs resources. It provides them with the latest updates and maintains communication between patrol and investigations.

Second, different units know different things about the case. Detectives unfamiliar with a certain beat may not know the businesses, apartments, alleyways, ingress/egress routes, informal hangouts, cameras, or people who matter in that area. A patrol officer or community policing officer may know those details intimately.

Third, different disciplines may see different opportunities. A phone forensic examiner may recognize missing records or a new technique. A CSI may identify a testing option that was not requested. A property crimes detective may know about a stolen vehicle pattern. A financial crimes investigator may see a way to prove association, movement, or motive through transactions. A patrol officer may know that a witness who would never call homicide has already talked to someone in uniform.

Major cases need that kind of cross-collaboration beyond the first forty-eight hours.

The Third-Floor Apartment Problem

One of the clearest examples came from a case where a beat officer asked a simple question:

“Did you contact the resident on the third floor?”

The location was a business, specifically a boutique-type business. We did not know there was an apartment on the third floor that overlooked the crime scene; canvassers just thought it was a closed business. Add a witness to this particular case.

That one question exposed a blind spot. It was not because the detectives and canvassers were lazy. It was because someone with beat-specific knowledge knew something unique about the area they worked in that the case team did not know.

In another case, community policing officers had relationships with business owners in the area. Through those relationships, they learned that an employee had talked to his managers about witnessing the city's latest homicide and was "shook up about it." He had seen the shooting from across the street while walking home from work. That witness helped connect two pieces of physical evidence, two different camera angles, and the movement of the shooters from one location across a dead spot to the getaway car.

That witness did not just add a statement. The witness strengthened the physical and video evidence by helping explain how the pieces fit together with the fleeing suspects.

That is the point of peer review. It is not just about finding more evidence. It is about giving existing evidence better context, stronger corroboration, and clearer meaning.

Timing Matters in Homicide Investigation

We started the process early, even when we had a strong suspect but no arrest.

For shootings and homicides, we wanted an early review when no one had been arrested. We selected one week after the incident. Some agencies may choose 15 days or a month out. The exact timeline can be adjusted, but the principle should stay the same: do not wait until the case is cold to start acting like it matters.

In all the peer reviews we conducted, there was not a single time we walked out of the room without something of added value.

Video is overwritten. Witnesses talk to each other. People become harder to find. Fear increases. Motivation decreases. Memories fade. Community concern turns into apathy. Suspects adapt. Phones get replaced. Vehicles disappear. Social media accounts change. The first version of the truth becomes harder to recover.

An early peer review helps prevent those kinds of drift.

Peer Review as a Bias Check

Major cases are vulnerable to tunnel vision because investigators must make fast decisions with incomplete information. That is not a character flaw. This is simply the nature of the work.

The problem is not having a theory. Investigators need theories. The problem is becoming overly loyal to a theory.

A strong peer review should ask:

What are we assuming?

What evidence supports the theory?

What evidence weakens it?

What would we expect to see if this theory were wrong?

What alternative suspect, motive, or sequence of events have we not fully tested?

What information are we treating as reliable that has not been corroborated?

What do we need to prove, disprove, or explain further?

This is where peer review and red teaming overlap. A thorough peer review should not be a meeting where everyone nods along with the lead detective. It should be a structured challenge process where the team pressure-tests case theories before the case is presented for charging.

Connecting Peer Review to Science-Based Interviewing

Peer review can also improve interviews.

In many investigations, the interview strengthens or weakens the evidence. A witness may provide context that makes a video meaningful. A suspect may offer an explanation that can be checked. A reluctant person may disclose a small detail that opens a new lead. A false denial may create a statement-evidence inconsistency that becomes powerful later.

But that does not happen by accident.

Supervisors and peer investigators need to help case detectives plan interviews. Before a major interview, the team should be asking:

What do we know?

What do we think we know (inferences)?

What does the interviewee likely know?

What should we ask or what are our interview objectives before disclosing evidence?

What does our evidence disclosure plan look like?

What evidence should be held back?

What explanations do we need to test?

What facts must be corroborated outside the interview?

This is especially important when using Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE). Evidence disclosure is not simply a dramatic reveal at the end of an interview. SUE is a questioning and interview planning process. The interviewer should create opportunities for the person to provide an account before the evidence shapes it.

That requires preparation.

Peer review provides supervisors and detectives a place to build that preparation together in protracted cases.

What a Major Case Peer Review Should Include

A practical peer review does not need to be complicated. It needs to be consistent.

The team should review the case synopsis, scene, timeline, evidence, video, phone records, interviews, known suspects, alternative theories, forensic status, and pending tasks.

The group should also identify what has not been done.That may include:

Uncontacted/not located witnesses.

Businesses not canvassed.

Apartments or residences missed during the initial scene response.

Video not yet collected.

Phones not yet extracted.

Search warrants or subpoenas not yet written.

NIBIN, DNA, latent print, or lab work still pending.

Vehicles not yet located.

Social media has not yet preserved.

Financial records not yet checked.

Neighboring cases that may connect.

The review should end with an action plan. Every task needs an owner, a deadline, and a follow-up mechanism. Otherwise, peer review becomes a discussion instead of an investigative tool.

How to Conduct the Peer Review

The value of peer review depends on more than who attends. The order and structure of the discussion are important as well.

Begin with a short, fact-based presentation from the case investigators. They should explain what is confirmed, what remains uncertain, the current working theory, important evidence, pending tasks, and where the investigation has stalled. Investigators should clearly distinguish among what they know, what they infer, and what they are assuming.

After the case presentation, invite peer detectives, patrol officers, analysts, forensic specialists, and other practitioners to speak first and ask questions. Supervisors and commanders should intentionally withhold their opinions until others have contributed. Once a supervisor announces a theory or preferred direction, people may unconsciously organize their thinking around it. Some may hesitate to disagree (stop engaging). Others may decide their idea is no longer worth mentioning.

The facilitator should move around the room by discipline and ask how each participant’s knowledge could add to the discussion by having them ask questions. Patrol and community policing officers may know the geography, businesses, informal gathering places, aliases, relationships, or reluctant witnesses. Analysts may recognize associations, related calls, vehicles, locations, or neighboring cases. Digital specialists may identify missing devices, cloud sources, provider records, cell-site data, or preservation needs. Crime scene personnel may recognize another testing, comparison, reconstruction, or scene-revisit opportunity. Investigators from financial crimes, property crimes, pawn, fraud, gang, narcotics, trafficking, or other specialty sections may see an avenue the primary case team would not ordinarily encounter.

The goal is not to have every person comment on every part of the case. The goal is to create enough latitude for people with different niche knowledge to identify something the case team could not reasonably have known on its own. The coveted unknown unknown.

Conduct the First Review Before Information Disappears

For major investigations, the first review should generally occur within 14 days—and sooner when video, digital evidence, witness access, or another time-sensitive opportunity could be at risk. This is not a cold-case review. It is an early intervention intended to prevent a major case from becoming one.

Time is not neutral. Video may be overwritten. A witness may discuss the event with others. A phone may be replaced, reset, damaged, or discarded. A vehicle may disappear. A social-media account may change. Community concern may decline, and people who initially wanted to help may move on.

An early review should therefore ask: What information or evidence are we most likely to lose next? Any actions required within the next 24 to 72 hours should be identified, assigned, and tracked. Additional reviews can occur at 30, 60, or 90 days with no arrest, before charging, after a significant development, or whenever the investigation loses momentum.

Protect Sensitive Investigative Information Before Expanding the Room

A multidisciplinary review does not mean unrestricted information sharing. Open investigations may involve holdback evidence, criminal histories, juvenile or medical information, intelligence records, digital evidence, protected witnesses, and uncharged persons. Before the meeting, the facilitator and case supervisor should decide who is authorized to participate, what information can be shared, and whether any material must be limited or sanitized.

Community organizations, schools, health providers, faith groups, and other non-law-enforcement partners can offer important prevention, stabilization, and victim-support perspectives. Their involvement, however, may be better suited to a separate prevention or systems review using appropriately sanitized information. Agencies should consult their legal advisors and applicable policies before sharing sensitive case information outside authorized criminal-justice channels.

Use a Neutral Facilitator and Assign the Meeting Roles

A productive review requires more than a case-knowledgeable presenter. Before the meeting, identify the case presenter, facilitator, recorder, and person responsible for tracking follow-up, usually your section commander. These roles may be performed by fewer than four people, but the responsibilities should be clear.

The presenter explains the case and will be able to answer questions and contextualize the case. The facilitator protects the process, has a higher ranking than your section commander, asks open-ended questions, invites quieter and junior personnel into the discussion, prevents one voice from dominating, and redirects blame or irrelevant debate. The recorder memorializes important information, disagreements, decisions, and assignments. The follow-up coordinator keeps tasks and resource requests from disappearing after the meeting.

Turn Discussion Into an Investigative Action Plan

A peer review should never end with, “Those were some good ideas.” Every lead, investigative opportunity, resource request, or unanswered question should be converted into an action item. Each item should identify the task, owner, priority, status, deadline, expected result, and follow-up mechanism.

The review should also document what changed. Did the group generate new information? Did it identify potentially disconfirming evidence? Did an alternative explanation become more plausible? Did another discipline provide a resource? Did the working theory become stronger, weaker, or more complicated? That record allows supervisors to support the investigation and ensures the meeting produces action instead of discussion alone.

Capture Both Case-Specific Actions and Broader Lessons

The Milwaukee Homicide Review Commission model offers a useful additional lesson: reviewing a case may expose more than an immediate investigative need. It may reveal a recurring training, policy, communication, resource, or prevention problem.

The Milwaukee model is broader than the investigative peer review described here. It uses multidisciplinary and multiagency reviews to understand patterns of violence, develop prevention strategies, and identify systemic changes. An investigative peer review, by contrast, remains focused on strengthening an active case, testing its evidence and theories, and determining what investigators should do next. The two processes overlap, but they should not be treated as identical.

A practical review can preserve both types of value by asking two questions: What should we do next in this case? What should we learn or change before the next case? The first answer belongs in the investigative action plan. The second may become a training need, quality-improvement project, policy review, resource request, cross-case analysis, or appropriately separated prevention discussion.

Download the Major Case Peer Review Worksheet

To help agencies implement this process, I created a printable Major Case Peer Review Worksheet for detectives, supervisors, and multidisciplinary review teams.

The worksheet includes case and review information; information-sharing restrictions; pre-meeting preparation and assigned roles; suggested participants; time-sensitive evidence checks; discipline-specific prompts; a red-team key assumptions check, alternative explanations and disconfirming evidence; information reliability and corroboration; interview and evidence-disclosure planning; accountable action items; broader organizational lessons; and review closeout.

The worksheet can be adapted for homicides, nonfatal shootings, stranger sexual assaults, critical missing-person cases, serial offenses, and other complex or high-consequence investigations.

Download the worksheet (pdf)

Download Editable Worksheet (Word)

The Real Investigative Value

The value of peer review is not that the room magically solves the case. Sometimes it does not. The value is that it keeps the case alive.

It brings fresh eyes to old assumptions. It gives detectives access to knowledge outside their unit. It helps supervisors support interviews instead of simply reviewing reports. It brings forensic, digital, patrol, and community knowledge into the same room. It creates accountability without turning the meeting into blame.

It also institutionalizes a red-team mindset. Instead of waiting for defense attorneys, prosecutors, judges, or juries to identify weaknesses in the case, investigators identify and address those weaknesses themselves.

One final lesson I learned as a commander involved how the review was facilitated. When I led these meetings, I started with the rank-and-file investigators and specialists in the room. I asked questions and encouraged discussion, but I did not allow supervisors to speak first. In fact, the supervisors and I intentionally spoke last.

There was a reason for that approach. Once a commander or supervisor offers an opinion, it can unintentionally shape the conversation. People may hesitate to disagree, offer a different perspective, or raise an idea that conflicts with what they believe leadership wants to hear. By letting detectives, analysts, patrol officers, forensic personnel, and other participants speak first, we created space for honest discussion and independent thinking.

Some of the best ideas came from people who might not have spoken up if a supervisor had already framed the issue. If peer review is going to function as a true red team process, leaders must resist the urge to provide answers or input too early. Their role is often to ask questions, listen carefully, facilitate discussion, and allow the room to think before they weigh in.

Major case investigations need more than hard work. They need thoughtful questioning. They need evidence disclosure planning. They need supervisors who can coach interviews. They need different disciplines in the same room. They need people who are willing to challenge assumptions before those assumptions become case facts.

Peer review is not new. When agencies conduct peer review early, consistently, and with the right people present, it can become one of the most practical tools for improving homicide investigations and major case outcomes. When peer review incorporates red team principles, it becomes even more powerful because it helps investigators test their theories, expose blind spots, and strengthen cases before those cases are tested in court.

In all the peer reviews we conducted, there was not a single time we walked out of the room without something of added value. We always left with additional information, a new lead, a different perspective, a challenge to an assumption, or another angle to pursue. Not once did we conduct a peer review and leave empty-handed. That alone convinced me of the value of the process.

Homicide Investigation References

Carter, D. L. (2013). Homicide process mapping: Best practices for increasing homicide clearances. Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

O’Brien, M., & Totoraitis, M. F. (2021). National Homicide Review Training and Technical Assistance Project: Milwaukee Homicide Review Training Manual. Medical College of Wisconsin and U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

Police Executive Research Forum. (2016). Review of the Cleveland Division of Police’s homicide investigation process: Findings and recommendations. Bureau of Justice Assistance.