Snitching

Criminal Informant Law, Policy, and Research

Informant Law

Ninth Circuit overturns murder conviction based on perjured informant testimony

by

Yesterday, in Maxwell v. Roe, the Ninth Circuit decided that Bobby Joe Maxwell’s due process rights were violated in 1984 when the government used Sidney “the Snitch Professor” Storch as the main witness at his multiple homicide trial. LA Times story here: Appeals Court overturns murder convictions of alleged L.A. serial killer.

This is an important case for a number of reasons. The first is historical: Storch was one of the most infamous jailhouse snitches in the Los Angeles County Jail during the 1980s, a period in which jailhouse snitch fabrication was rampant, numerous wrongful convictions occurred, and which eventually triggered a massive Grand Jury investigation and stringent reforms in Los Angeles.

The factual basis for the decision is also important. Appellate courts rarely conclude as a factual matter that a witness such as a jailhouse informant committed perjury, which is one of the reasons it is so difficult to overturn a conviction even after a witness recants. See previous post: In the news– Recantation. In this case, the Ninth Circuit decided that “it was objectively unreasonable for the Superior Court to find that Storch testified truthfully at the 1984 trial,” based on Storch’s history as an informant and his other lies at trial. From the opinion:

There is simply too much evidence of Storch’s pattern of perjury to conclude otherwise. At the time of Maxwell’s trial, Storch was already employing the “booking” formula that he would later teach others and for which he would become famous; the housing records show that Storch had physical proximity to Maxwell; Storch openly admitted that he was in possession of a newspaper article about the murders; the newspaper article itself mentioned all of the specific facts to which Storch testified–namely, that the police had found Maxwell’s palm print on a nearby park bench; and, finally, Storch contacted Deputy District Attorney Sterling Norris with the news of his cellmate’s spontaneous confession and negotiated his own deal in exchange for his testimony.

In other words, it was just too likely that Storch was lying for the government to use him. As our knowledge of jailhouse informants increases, there may be more informants who fit this too-unreliable-to-testify profile.

Finally, the case has doctrinal significance. The court held that the use of Storch at trial violated Maxwell’s due process rights. This was in large part because Storch was the “‘make-or-break’ witness for the state” and “the centerpiece of the prosecution’s case” and therefore his testimony was clearly material to the outcome of the trial. Notably, the court assumed for the sake of argument that the government did not know that Storch was lying — the due process violation flowed not from any intentional government misconduct, but because “to permit a conviction based on uncorrected false material evidence to stand is a violation of a defendant’s due process rights.” This is an important rule — it is not uncommon for defendants to discover post-trial evidence that a key informant witnesses lied–either because of recantations or other impeachment evidence. See for example this post: More on the Spokane convictions. The Maxwell decision suggests that courts may be starting to take such evidence of informant perjury more seriously.

Massachusetts Supreme Court disapproves of prosecutorial rewards to witnesses

by

Two witnesses in Wayne Miranda’s murder trial received $2000 each from the Chamber of Commerce because their testimony assisted in producing a guilty verdict. As the Boston Globe writes, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, while approving such witness reward programs generally, has ruled that prosecutors cannot participate in them or help witnesses get rewards when those rewards are contingent on convictions. Commonwealth v. Wayne Miranda, SJC-10568. From the Court’s opinion:

We recognize that, to prove the crime charged, prosecutors often need to procure the cooperation and truthful information or testimony of reluctant witnesses. The interests of justice, however, are not well served when a witness’s reward is contingent on the conviction of a defendant, rather than the provision of truthful information or testimony.

While the Massachusetts Supreme Court should be lauded for its ethical concern, its decision is somewhat ironic. Prosecutors routinely provide far greater benefits to criminal informant witnesses, in the form of liberty and leniency, than a few thousand dollars. In many jurisdictions, these rewards can be contigent on conviction. And even when the rewards are not expressly contingent on conviction, every attorney and informant knows that a witness in a successful conviction is more likely to get rewarded.
This is why Professor George Harris [author of Testimony for Sale: The Law and Ethics of Snitches and Experts, 28 Pepp. L. Rev. 1 (2000)], and I have recommended leveling the playing field by creating defense informants, i.e. rewards for informants who come forward with information that might help the defense rather than the prosecution. As it currently stands, an offender with information helpful to the defense cannot expect any benefits–only the government can give those. This lopsided arrangement is, as the Massachusetts Supreme Court pointed out, not in the interests of accuracy or justice.

Texas requires corroboration for informant witnesses

by

Perhaps as a result of these sorts of debacles, Infamous fake drug scandal in Dallas, Of Experts and Snitches, Texas has passed some good corroboration legislation restricting the use of drug informants and jailhouse snitches. Last year, it passed this law requiring corroboration for jailhouse snitches:

A defendant may not be convicted of an offense on the testimony of a person to whom the defendant made a statement against the defendant’s interest during a time when the person was imprisoned or confined in the same correctional facility as the defendant unless the testimony is corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the offense committed. Tex. Code. Crim. Pro. art. 38-075

Article 38-141 similarly requires corroboration before a drug informant can testify. These are steps in the right direction, although they are only partial solutions to the lying snitch problem. The key to informant unreliability is not whether the informant is involved in drugs or in jail, but whether he expects a benefit and therefore has a motivation to lie. Nebraska takes the right approach in this regard by defining “informant” to include “any criminal suspect, whether or not he is detained or incarcerated, who received a deal, promise, inducement or benefit.” Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1929. In defining informant broadly, the Nebraska legislature reasoned that “there is a compelling state interest in providing safeguards against the admission of testimony the reliability of which may be or has been compromised through improper inducements.”

Motion to Preclude Creation of Snitch Testimony

by

The Kansas Death Penalty Defense Unit recently filed this motion asking the court to take protective measures to prevent jailhouse snitches from being created in the case of Kansas v. Adam Longoria. Asserting that “Mr. Longoria has no intention of talking to anyone but his attorneys about the facts of this case,” the motion requests that the court “take measures to ensure that no jailhouse snitches or other suspect informants are created in this case to manufacture evidence for the state.” This proactive defense tactic appears to be getting more common (see previous post: Interesting effort to preempt jailhouse snitching).

Interesting effort to preempt jailhouse snitching

by

Since everyone in the criminal system knows that high-profile murder suspects are prime targets for jailhouse snitches, why not try to nip it in the bud? That’s what one Arizona public defender tried to do, asking the judge to keep other inmates away from his client Pamela Phillips if those other inmates were also represented by the public defender’s office. Were such inmates to come forward as snitch witnesses, it would create a conflict and the public defender’s office could no longer represent Phillips. Story here: Pre-emptive anti-snitch move fails. The judge denied the motion, but its a good example of proactive lawyering that builds on our growing knowledge of how jailhouse informants operate.