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

Christian Cory
Apr 7
9 min read

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.

Detective briefs police and officials in a conference room, pointing to photos and maps on a homicide investigation board — 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 simple: 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.

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 absolutely need to 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, 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 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.

Time is not neutral in a major case.

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 that 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.

The Real 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.