Safeguards Needed to Prevent Unreliable "Snitch" Testimony

Imagine you are on trial, accused of a crime you did not commit. The prosecution calls a witness, a jailhouse informant who fabricates a story claiming you confessed to the crime. The entire case centers on this supposed confession and you are convicted. Convicted for a crime you never committed.

Seems unfair, right?

Unfortunately, this very scenario has played out in courtrooms across the country and will continue to do so unless we increase standards for the use of in-custody informant, or jailhouse "snitch" testimony. Jailhouse snitch testimony is widely regarded as the least reliable form of testimony in the criminal justice system, however, uncorroborated testimony from unscrupulous jailhouse informants is often used by prosecutors to obtain convictions. Studies have shown that falsified snitch testimony is a leading cause of wrongful convictions in capital cases.

The Justice Project is releasing today, Jailhouse Snitch Testimony: A Policy Review, which identifies the best practices for states to safeguard against perjured testimony by implementing mandatory, automatic pretrial disclosures of information related to jailhouse informant testimony, corroboration of the facts to which an informant testifies, special jury instructions, and higher standards for the admissibility of snitch testimony at trial. Please visit The Justice Project's website for our new policy review on snitch testimony reform here.

In a system that rewards snitching for personal gain, the motivation to fabricate testimony is exceedingly high. With little to lose and much to gain, in-custody informants are often desperate to attain compensation -- such as sentence reductions, upgraded facilities or conditions, even clemency -- in exchange for testimony against another person. By requiring higher scrutiny and transparency of the process we can improve the reliability of jailhouse informant testimony.

Fabricated snitch testimony that wrongly convicts a person is expensive not only in financial costs, but in societal costs: an innocent person is punished while a guilty person remains at large; the state is less credible in its pursuit of justice; and public frustration with delayed and unreliable justice grows.

Some states have already taken steps to implement many of the recommendations outlined in our policy review. For example, in Illinois the courts require pretrial reliability hearings in capital cases that utilize jailhouse snitch testimony.

However, much more work needs to be done across the country to stem these miscarriages of justice. Higher scrutiny and transparency within the jailhouse snitch system allows law enforcement, courts, and the criminal justice system as a whole to focus limited resources on convicting the guilty while avoiding the travesty of wrongful conviction. To do anything less would put innocent lives at risk.

In tomorrow's post I will talk about how incomplete discovery between the prosecution and defense compromises justice and leads to unreliable results.

To read this and our other criminal justice reform policy reviews on eyewitness and interrogation reform please visit The Justice Project's website here.

John F. Terzano is the President of The Justice Project, a nonpartisan organization that works to address unfairness and inaccuracy in the criminal justice system, with a focus on the capital punishment system.

Comments

[Danny]

No wonder the "Justice" Department under Ashcroft and Gonzales is so reviled. Thanks for shining light on these outrages. We could be next.

[dadw5boys]

If a jail house snitch is going to say anything you could not stop it. If you didn't even talk to the guy person law enforcement could give him enough info to create a story.
They get the one they want.
I Heard a lot of states are destorying evidence from old cases so no DNA test can be performed and no one questions past arrest and convictions.