Jailhouse informants

January 2, 2006

California

Jailhouse informants

Justice demands extreme caution

The Sacramento Bee, Editorial

If you're looking for an arcane fact to dazzle your dinner companions,
here's one: False testimony from jailhouse informants is the leading cause
of wrongful convictions of death-row inmates.

According to the Center on Wrongful Convictions at the Northwestern
University School of Law, false testimony was a factor in close to half of
the 111 death-row exonerations across the country since 1973.

Although none of the exonerations involved California death-row inmates,
lawyers who defend the condemned in this state report that jailhouse
informants are frequently used here, too. Rarely do they testify about guilt
involving the underlying crime. Rather they tend to provide crucial
testimony used to prove that a death-row inmate showed lack of remorse or
other aggravating circumstances necessary to persuade juries to choose
execution over life imprisonment.

Because death-row convictions get more comprehensive reviews, the improper
use of jailhouse informant testimony tends to be well documented in those
cases. But thousands of nondeath-row inmates are serving long prison terms
based on such testimony as well. One of the most notorious jailhouse
informants, Leslie Vernon White, confessed in 1989 to giving false testimony
in more than a dozen Los Angeles cases.

The California Commission for the Fair Administration of Justice, a panel of
experts convened by the state Senate to review weaknesses in our criminal
justice system, recently proposed a series of common-sense rules for courts
and prosecutors on the use of jailhouse informants. Such witnesses are
either incarcerated or charged with crimes themselves. They often receive a
reward for their testimony: lenient sentencing, reduced charges, better
confinement conditions or, in some cases, cash. Their testimony is
notoriously unreliable.

To better ensure that justice is administered fairly, the commission
recommends that whenever feasible a written agreement should describe the
range of rewards or benefits offered by prosecutors in exchange for truthful
testimony. A member of the DA's supervisory staff, someone other than the
deputy assigned to the trial in question, should review the use of jailhouse
informant testimony. Whether the testimony is used or not, all contacts with
in-custody informants should be maintained in a central file. And all
interviews with in-custody informants by DA personnel should be recorded and
preserved.

Finally, and most important, the commission recommends that, before
jailhouse testimony is used, there be corroborating evidence that
independently tends to connect the defendant with the crime to which the
informant testifies. Such corroborating evidence is already required for
accomplices who testify against co-defendants. Given the enormous incentives
for jailhouse informants to lie, it makes sense to require corroboration for
their testimony as well.

Four of California's five biggest counties have written rules to guide
prosecutors on the use of in-house informants. Unfortunately, Sacramento
County has not.

Chief Deputy District Attorney Cindy Besemer says that current office policy
disfavors the use of in-house informants, that such testimony is rarely used
and, therefore, a written policy is unnecessary.

We disagree. Given the known risk of jailhouse testimony, anytime it is used
it needs to be regulated, documented and recorded. The Sacramento DA's
policy should be written down for the protection of prosecutors, defendants,
the public and justice.

---

Source : The Sacramento Bee, Editorial

http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/101502.html