Snitching

Criminal Informant Law, Policy, and Research

Jailhouse Informants

Orange County snitch scandal still isn’t over

by

It began back in 2012, when public defender Scott Sanders started uncovering unconstitutional informant use in the Orange County jail and widespread law enforcement practices designed to cover them up. Dozens of cases were compromised, including homicide cases, due to prosecutorial misconduct. The US Department of Justice conducted a six-year investigation. Now Sanders has filed a new motion detailing many more cases that may have been compromised. From the LAist:

“On top of the cases already impacted by the snitch scandal’s long reach, Sanders outlined dozens more cases in a recent court filing that could be revisited because of new evidence of potential misconduct. That misconduct, Sanders alleges, was carried out by O.C. law enforcement officers and a former top prosecutor who is now a superior court judge.”

For years, Sanders and the Orange County Public Defender office have been the prime drivers for uncovering informant misuse and official nondisclosure. As Maurice Possley of the National Registry of Exonerations points out, “we don’t really know how common it is for law enforcement officials and prosecutors to withhold evidence because it’s a ‘”‘hidden crime.'”

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.”