Snitching

Criminal Informant Law, Policy, and Research

Alexandra Natapoff

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg: punished for not snitching?

by

In this month’s edition of the Monthly Review, Staughton Lynd offers this meditation on the famous Rosenbergs: Is There Anything More to Say about the Rosenberg Case? Lynd, himself a well-known anti-Vietnam War activist, quaker, historian, and attorney, argues that the Rosenbergs were executed in 1953 not so much for being part of a Russian spy ring, but because they–unlike other members of the ring–refused to give information to the govenment. From the article:

We should ask, “Why were the Rosenbergs punished so much more severely than others whose activities were comparable to theirs?” I believe Haynes and Klehr provide the answer. Each individual who “confessed” was required to do one thing more. He or she was also asked to identify (“finger”) other individuals engaged in espionage. Thus, “Fuchs’ confession in Britain led the FBI to Harry Gold in the United States. Gold’s confession in turn…quickly led the FBI to Sgt. David Greenglass. Greenglass confessed to espionage and also implicated his wife, Ruth, and his brother-in-law, Julius Rosenberg.” But, at this point, the FBI inquiry hit a snag, or what Haynes and Klehr call “stonewalling” by the Rosenbergs and Morton Sobell. That is to say, these three persons refused to snitch. …

I offer the opinion that the Rosenbergs’ execution was really all about their refusal to snitch. On the basis of a fifteen-year acquaintance with death row prisoners in Ohio, I can state that the refusal to snitch is one of the highest values of long-term prisoners. It is the essence of the “convict code.” Refusal to snitch earns a prisoner recognition as a “solid convict.” In contrast, the government wanted an unbroken chain of informants who would inform against their colleagues. When confronted by individuals who refused to confess or “deal,” the government decided to send a message to all other potential informants by killing the Rosenbergs.

‘Stop Snitching’ in the UK

by

Since we have a guest from the UK, this story seemed particularly timely. A ‘stop snitching’ pamphlet was distributed in a largely black London housing project after a murder. The event has triggered a debate very similar to the debate in the U.S. over police-community relations. From the BBC story: Peckham murder ‘snitch’ leaflet: what has changed?:

“No one likes a rat,” the pamphlets stated. “Remember the police are not your friend. Don’t be deceived by promises of anonymity, protection and rewards. They will say and do anything to make you snitch, then destroy your life.” It concluded: “Be smart. Don’t snitch.” The flyers were linked to a website, entitled ‘Stop Snitching’. It is unclear whether the site is linked to a campaign of the same name launched in 2004, in the troubled US city of Baltimore. …

Claudia Webbe, chairwoman of the public panel set up to scrutinise the police’s work, said: “People on the estate were very angry and defiant after the leaflets – but for some it added to the fear. It tapped into suspicions some have long believed.” One Southwark councillor has claimed that the leaflets actually had the effect of increasing the number of calls to police – something the Metropolitan Police is yet to comment on. And Ms Webbe thinks the estate’s reaction since the leafleting campaign is symptomatic of how relationships between police and the black community have improved. She said: “In 1998 not a single person would have spoken to police after a murder like this.”

Contract killer avoids death penalty by cooperating

by

Washington Times journalist Jim McElhatton has written another revealing story about the violent dynamics of snitching: this one on seven-time killer Oscar Veal who cooperated against the violent Washington DC drug gang that hired him. In exchange, Veal escaped the death penalty and was sentenced to 25 years, half of which he has already served. Story here: A killer deal: be a star witness, escape execution. Based on thousands of pages of newly obtained documents, the Times story offers a rare window into the secretive dynamics of such arrangements. From the story:

Veal, 39, shot and killed seven people. A contract killer for a large drug ring and murder-for-hire operation a decade ago, he cooperated with prosecutors and became a star witness for the government. Kevin Gray, the lead defendant in one case in which Veal testified, alone was convicted in Washington of taking part in a record 19 murders.

But there is a price to be paid for such testimony. Veal could have faced the death penalty. Instead, he has completed about half of a 25-year prison term — less than four years for each of the execution-style murders he committed. At his 2005 sentencing, which has not been previously reported, a relative of one victim said she will pray until her dying breath that Veal never sees the streets again. And attorneys for the men he testified against portrayed him as a snitch willing to lie in court to save himself.

The Veal story starkly illustrates the trade-offs of the criminal informant deal. On the one hand, deals with murderers like Veal are one of the only ways the government can go after violent criminal organizations. On the other, society pays a significant price, not only because Veal will walk the streets again but because offenders like him know that the most heinous of crimes can be worked off in exchange for cooperation.

Challenge to Texas death penalty

by

In an historic and rare event, a Texas judge last month began a hearing on the constitutionality of the death penalty, entertaining arguments that the system is so prone to erroneous conviction that it might violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The defense called numerous experts from around the country (including me) to testify on various aspects of the death penalty including: error rates, the use of unreliable eyewitness testimony, junk science and forensic evidence, informants, discovery, death-qualified juries, and race. Story and witness list here: Hearing on Constitutionality of Texas Death Penalty. At the government’s request, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stayed the hearing after two days and the parties are now briefing matters. For additional information, see Fountain’s Pen blog: Appeals court orders stay in death penalty hearing.

Harris County, TX offering jailhouse snitches $5000

by

More Texas news. The Harris County jail has a new “Crime Stoppers” program aimed at inmates who call in information, offering rewards of up to $5,000. Houston Chronicle story here: Jailhouse informers: Inmates can offer tips, get paid. County Sheriff Adrian Garcia explains the idea:

“When people are coming into the jail environment, we recognize they’re vulnerable,” Garcia said. “They’re caught and being processed. We wanted to take advantage of that psychology. If they are the only one caught and they’ve been involved in a crime someone else planned, it may be a good idea for them to speak up.”

While the idea of extending Crime Stoppers to criminals might seem logical, Grits for Breakfast points out some challenges:

One critical difference between jailhouse snitches and others who call Crime Stoppers, though: While an arrest may be made or criminal charges filed based on testimony from a jailhouse informant, in 2009 the Texas Legislature, in a bill authored by state Sen. Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa, required corroboration for jailhouse snitches’ testimony in order to secure a conviction. Another difference: Jail calls are never anonymous.

The oddest aspect of the new program is that it completely ignores the well-documented tendency of jailhouse snitches to lie in exchange for benefits. From the Los Angeles Grand Jury investigation to the Canadian Kaufman inquiry, the Illinois Commission on the death penalty, and the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice report, numerous official studies have documented the pervasive use of snitches in U.S. jails and the potent dangers of wrongful conviction that flow from doing so. See for example, The Snitch System Report by Northwestern University Law School, concluding that criminal snitches constitute the “leading cause of wrongful convictions in U.S. capital cases.” It is thus hard to see how Crime Stoppers’ executive director Katherine Cabannis can say that “she believes the program will be successful because it solicits crime information from an untapped population” or how it can be that District Attorney Pat Lykos “sees no potential downsides.” Indeed, jailhouse snitch testimony is so infamously unreliable that it compelled Texas to enact its corroboration requirement, which I applauded here: Texas requires corroboration for jailhouse snitches. While the corroboration requirement should mitigate some of the dangers of Harris County’s new reward program, in this day and age government officials should think long and hard before creating new incentives for jailhouse informants.