Federal courts may have to revisit several drug cases in the Cleveland area after a paid government informant has admitted to lying under oath in several cases. One woman has already been released from a ten-year prison term, and charges against two others have been dropped. Another man, who was acquitted of charges based on the informant's testimony after spending eight months in prison while awaiting trial, is suing.
This is of course merely the latest scandal involving lazy drug cops who work with shady informants and don't look for corroborating evidence before making arrests (or, in the case of Kathryn Johnston and several dozen others, before kicking down doors).
The ACLU will soon be launching a national campaign about the use of informants. I think we'll also be reading soon about more scandals involving federal informants and drug snitches, particularly coming out of the federal prison system.
Drug Informant Admits to Lying
Comments to "Drug Informant Admits to Lying":
Stephen the Goldberger | July 24, 2007, 10:04am | #
this is bad but it looks to me like responsibility lies on the jurors for trusting untrustworthy testimony and not on prosecutors. Ignoring a debate on the legitimacy of drug laws of course.jimmydageek | July 24, 2007, 10:06am | #
Snitches are Bitches...especially the ones being paid by police for their "information".How do I get a job like that? I'll give you the names of everybody I know (whether or not they use drugs)...
And columnists like Leonard Pitts wonder why there is such a strong cultural movement to 'stop snitchin'.
Prosecutors routinely pay for testimony, in the form of reduced sentences. The value of the payment can be enormous - there's no limit.
Michael Pack | July 24, 2007, 10:38am | #
It was not unusal during proabition for one bootleger to rat on another and create more market for himself.My grandpa was one.I heard all the stories.Neu Mejican | July 24, 2007, 11:15am | #
At this point, what is the point of anecdotal evidence. There is enough study of the issue to use more robust sources of evidence to build an argument against the WOD.No matter how many anecdotal posts appear on-line here at Reason, they remain simple anecdote and essentially an emotional appeal.
x,y | July 24, 2007, 11:21am | #
Prosecutors routinely pay for testimony, in the form of reduced sentences. The value of the payment can be enormous - there's no limit.Well said.
Jennifer | July 24, 2007, 1:37pm | #
this is bad but it looks to me like responsibility lies on the jurors for trusting untrustworthy testimonySerious question: how are jurors supposed to recognize untrustworthy testimony coming from the prosecution? The majority of Americans do NOT read blogs like this one, and therefore are NOT likely to view the government and its agents with a gimlet eye.
crimethink | July 24, 2007, 3:30pm | #
Jennifer,And those that do will definitely not be allowed to sit on juries.
I doubt reading blogs will keep you from being on a jury. But I'll try it next time I receive my jury summons. I'm about due.
Scooby | July 24, 2007, 4:03pm | #
Viewing blogs will keep you off a jury? Probably not.Viewing the government with a gimlet eye and not concealing that during voir dire? Definitely.
Cracker's Boy | July 24, 2007, 4:41pm | #
"responsibility lies on the jurors for trusting untrustworthy testimony and not on prosecutors."I'd more likely buy this if, in fact, the jurors were permitted to hear/see ALL of the evidence. Nothing inadmissible because the search warrant was flawed; no 'sidebar' discussions; nothing excluded because it is "too prejudicial" or "inflammatory".
Give me ALL of the evidence, then let me decide.
CB
Chavez is a thug | July 24, 2007, 5:29pm | #
Paid informants lie? Who knew such a thing was possible?NoStar | July 25, 2007, 2:38pm | #
The best way to avoid sitting on a jury is to wear your "I support the right of Jury Nullification" T-shirt when called to do your civic duty.If you want to serve, bring something other than Reason Magazine to read. I'd suggest the World News Weekly, but it is no more.