Witness Tampering

A new, undisclosed field sobriety expert will examine drunken driving charges against Bruce L. Fish after the original expert said he decided not to take the case after being approached by a "police official."

At a hearing Friday, Mercer County public defender Mark Appleton said that he received a letter dated Dec. 30 from Ron Henson of Beron Consulting of Illinois Inc. that stated Mr. Henson did not wish to participate in Mr. Fish's case.

"He indicated to me that he was contacted by a police official," Mr. Appleton said Friday. "He did not give me a name."

Mr. Henson did not return phone calls from The Dispatch and The Rock Island Argus seeking comment.
...
Mr. Appleton said Mr. Henson and the police official, with whom he was "acquainted," spoke "in detail" about Mr. Fish. The judge granted the defense's motion for a new field sobriety expert.

That expert's name will not be disclosed until after he or she issues an opinion. The defense has subpoenaed records from the Mercer County Sheriff's Department and some of Mr. Fish's medical records.

This Fish guy is hardly a sympathetic figure, and one trusts that justice will be done him and he's removed from the roads for a good long time.

But could someone explain to me why this isn't exactly the sort of witness tampering which routinely earn mobsters and others long prison sentences?

How is it in any way, shape, or form proper for a police official to contact a defense witness with the result of the appearance that the witness is scared or intimidated off the case?

Though the content of the conversations between the field sobriety test expert and the un-named "police official" isn't disclosed, it certainly gives the impression that the official either intimidated, threatened, or warned the expert off the case. Could someone in the legal field or someone with more knowledge explain how this isn't a cause for discipline, if not prosecution?

How is this different from a defendant "convincing" a witness to not testify?