Snitching

Criminal Informant Law, Policy, and Research

Jailhouse Informants

Hawaii wrongful conviction used snitches to bolster weak DNA evidence

by

Albert “Ian” Schweitzer spent 25 years in prison for a murder he did not commit, based on faulty DNA testing and two different lying informants–one drug defendant and one jailhouse informant. The first informant received probation instead of significant jailtime and avoided federal prosecution. The jailhouse snitch avoided retrial and a potential 10-year sentence. Story from the Hawaii Innocence Project here: Ian Schweitzer Exonerated of Murder After 25 Years in Hawaii. Thanks to Radley Balko’s The Watch for highlighting the story.

The case is an example of a larger forensic problem. Jailhouse snitch testimony often comes into existence in order to bolster weak cases. High profile murders tend to generate snitch testimony since informants know that rewards are forthcoming. The problem is worse for weak cases: if the case were strong, the government wouldn’t need the snitch. The confluence creates a pernicious storm of inaccuracy where bad evidence makes other bad evidence look better than it actually is. For more examples see this previous post about dog sniff and arson bolstering.

Orange County violated the Constitution with its secret informant program

by

The U.S. Department of Justice has released the results of its six-year investigation into Orange County, California, confirming that the Sheriff’s Department and the Office of the District Attorney routinely violated the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process rights of people in the county jail through law enforcement creation, reward, and use of informants. Story from The Appeal here: DOJ Finds Orange County Sheriff, DA Violated Civil Rights Using Illegal Jailhouse Informants. And on what kinds of enforcement actions might follow, see this from the Orange County Register which documented the scandal for years: Courts likely will be needed to force OC to fix illegal use of jailhouse informants.

The Orange County snitch scandal has provided the public with a rare window into the workings of the informant market. Orange County officials rewarded gang informants with money and other benefits, in exchange for which those informants unconstitutionally gathered information about other defendants. County officials lied for years about the program to defense attorneys and in court. Numerous convictions have been overturned as a result. For more, see these prior posts.

New Jersey AG issues jailhouse informant directive

by

The New Jersey Attorney General issued Directive 2020-11 which requires all state prosecutors to seek supervisory approval before using jailhouse informants. That approval process requires, among other things, the collection of comprehensive information regarding the proposed informant witness. Supervisors must satisfy themselves that prosecutors have met their discovery obligations, and that “there is independent, credible evidence corroborating the informant’s testimony.”

Chicago jailhouse confessions admitted after informant reliability hearing

by

In an early test of Illinois’s new reliability hearing requirement, a judge held that three men would be permitted to testify at trial after vetting them in a pre-trial informant reliability hearing. All three alleged that the defendant had confessed to them while incarcerated. The judge based his ruling in part on his finding that “no deal, no promises, no inducements or benefits were made by the state.”