Snitching

Criminal Informant Law, Policy, and Research

Witness Intimidation

Gerald Shur, Architect of Witness Protection Program, Dies at 86

by

Gerald Shur was a DOJ lawyer who started the federal witness security program (WITSEC) in 1970. The program elevated the use of high-profile informants and is widely credited with helping bring down the mafia. Shur co-authored a 2002 book “WITSEC: Inside the Federal Witness Protection Program” with the journalist Pete Earley. From the obituary in the New York Times:

“Mr. Shur had standards governing which witnesses got into the program: They had to have real evidence against someone of importance, and they had to be in real jeopardy if they agreed to provide it. ‘I guarantee you,’ Mr. Shur said in the 2007 interview, ‘that the kind of people we accept are ones where if the guy testified on Monday morning and didn’t get protection he would be dead Monday afternoon.’ The program has drawn its share of complaints, especially early on, when the number of participants grew quickly. Some of those given new identities complained of inadequate support or security in their new lives, or of trouble with paperwork. And sometimes, since many protected witnesses were lifelong criminals, they returned to their former lives.”

Threats against cooperators and calls for secrecy

by

Earlier this year, the Federal Judicial Center released a report assessing threats against federal defendants who cooperate: Survey of Harm to Cooperators.  A survey of federal judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, and probation officers showed that the majority of these legal officials were aware of threats to or harms against cooperating defendants in one or more cases.  The survey identified hundreds of cases in which cooperators or witnesses were threatened or harmed.

The Marshall Project reported on this issue today in an article entitled “Is the Internet endangering criminal informants? A judicial committee proposes more secrecy.”  A committee of the Judicial Conference has called for more secrecy regarding cooperator status, including proposals to routinely seal records or create special “sealed supplements” to every case.  But there are several problems with this approach.  As the Marshall Project put it:

“Many defense attorneys and free speech advocates say that the proposed new rules are troublesome (and perhaps unlawful) for at least two reasons. First, they say, creating a sealed annex in every case could deprive the public, and the media, of basic information that goes beyond the issue of cooperation. Second, several defense attorney told me this week the proposed new rules could have the perverse effect of making life even more dangerous for informants; the existence of sealed supplement would mean every inmate was presumed to be a “snitch” unless proven otherwise. And such proof would be hard to come by with the information sealed.” 

Washington Post: witness intimidation a continuing problem

by

This Washington Post story is entitled “Dozens in D.C., Maryland paid the ultimate price for cooperating with the police.” It documents numerous recent deaths and the continued threats to cooperating witnesses.  From the story:

[A]t least 37 people in the District and Maryland [] have been killed since 2004 for cooperating with law enforcement or out of fear that they might, according to a Washington Post examination of hundreds of police and court records. . . . .

 

The Post’s review found that among those killed for cooperating with authorities or out of fear that they might: 

●At least 19 didn’t receive protection, including a confidential informant working for the Drug Enforcement Administration who was lured to a home by a drug dealer’s girlfriend and then fatally shot by the dealer. 

●At least five were killed after defense attorneys learned their names or other identifying information and told their clients. In one case, a lawyer tipped off a defendant that prosecutors wanted to interview the witness. Six days later, the witness was found dead.

●Nine were offered protection but declined, including a 38-year-old Baltimore County man who was unaware of the long criminal history — including murder, attempted murder and firearms charges — of the man he was scheduled to testify against. 

●At least five were slain after they were relocated but returned to their old neighborhoods. 

●In at least four cases, charges against a defendant were dropped after the witness was killed.

Washington state family sues police for the murder of their informant son

by

From the Washington State Daily News: Family of murdered informant files claim.

The parents of a slain Longview drug informant have filed claims against Cowlitz and Wahkiakum counties, saying narcotics detectives coerced 26-year-old Jeremy McLean into their service, then failed to protect him from a drug dealer he’d helped police snare. 

McLean, who was murdered by William Vance Reagan Jr. in late 2008, was arrested on drug-related charges and “was forced to sign a plea agreement … in order to avoid incarceration,” according to documents filed late last month. The terms of the plea agreement required McLean to become an informant for the Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Narcotics Task Force, according to the claim… 

Reagan, who was sentenced to life in prison, confessed to the killing, saying he was trying to keep McLean from testifying against him.

Detroit teen killed after becoming an informant

by

Shelley Hilliard, a 19-year-old transgendered woman, agreed with police to set up a $335 drug deal in order to avoid being arrested for marijuana possession. Three days later she was killed, allegedly by the man she set up. Detroit News story here: Teen found dead three days after helping police. This story illustrates how informant culture encourages dangerous decisions that are wildly disproportionate to the crimes involved. This young woman took a great risk to avoid the petty offense of marijuana possession, and police turned her into an informant, with all its attendant risks, in pursuit of another petty drug deal worth less than $400. Such important decisions–by individuals or police–should not be made so cavalierly. For example, Florida’s “Rachel’s Law” requires police to establish guidelines to determine when it is appropriate, or too dangerous, to turn a suspect into an informant. Rachel’s Law was passed in response to the death of Rachel Hoffman, another young informant who was killed while setting up a drug deal. See this previous post: Florida’s Rachel’s Law provides some protection to informants, and the Families & Youth section on the main website for related stories.