Snitches

[Sebastian Dangerfield]

Richard Romeo reminds us 
> about the government's use of informants in the drug war.   [. . .
Whereby] more than >50% >of those sentenced are low-level couriers and
such, whereas only 11% are true >drug kingpins or major traffickers--the
folks the law was intended for.

This is all too depressingly true.  In the federal system, the
over-modestly entitled "Sentencing Guidelines," in combination with
unconscionable mandatory minima written onto the drug laws themselves,
have bereft judges of their traditional discretion in sentencing.  And
drug convictions are more often than not procured through the use of
"cooperating witnesses"--fellow transgressors who have promised to snitch
in exchange for leniency.  Needless to say, there is a considerable
incentive to exaggerate and fabricate on the part of such witnesses,
making their testimony something that one is entitled to view with some
skepticism.  Since the government is always happy to boost their
statistics with convictions of any kind, it is not uncommon for the
government to, in essence, allow the baddies to pick their own fall
guy/gal this way.

In relation to this, I thought folks might be interested in one of the
more interesting things to happen on the federal criminal justice scene
last year.  

Sonya Singleton was a low-level operative for a cocaine smuggling ring. 
Her involvement consisted of sending and receiving wire transfers of
money for the operation.  She was convicted largely on the testimony of a
co-conspirator who was, as the all-too-familiar-story goes, offered
leniency in exchange for his testimony.

Before trial, Singleton's lawyer made a novel, but simple and compelling
argument:  There is a federal law that forbids anyone from giving,
offering, or promising anything of value to a witness for or because of
his or her testimony.  The co-conspirator's testimony was procured in
violation of that statute.  Therefore, the evidence must be suppressed.

The trial judge, unsurprisingly, did not buy this argument.  But a panel
of the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, courageously, did.  They
concluded: "The judicial process is tainted and justice cheapened when
factual testimony is purchased, whether with leniency or money.  Because
prosecutors bear a weighty responsibility to do justice and observe the
law in the course of a prosecution, it is particularly appropriate to
apply the strictures of section 201(c)(2) to their activities."

This ruling -- binding on the federal courts throughout the 10th Circuit
(covering the states of Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma, and
New Mexico) -- sent shock waves throughout the prosecutorial community,
which raised a hue and cry, as their best corner-cutting way of securing
convictions was threatened.  Never mind that it undermines our confidence
in the outcome of trials, never mind that it allows criminals to decide
who they serve up for punishment, and never mind that the rather
unambiguous wording of the law appears to apply to favors like shorter
sentences as much as it applies to money.  

Unfortunately, the victory was short lived.  Within ten days, the full
court (the courts of appeals have 10-15 judges who sit in panels of three
for normal cases, but if a panel opinion is to be overruled, it takes a
majority of the full court) voted to rehear the case and vacated the
opinion.  Five days ago, they rendered their decision.  Unsurprisingly,
the Reagan/Bush apointee-heavy court voted against the original panel. 
The three on the original panel dissented.  It's a fascinating exchange. 
The majority does not have much (legally or intellectually) on its side
except 'tradition' and a preponderance of votes.  

For anyone interested in the debacle, the original panel opinion can be
found at:
http://lawlib.wuacc.edu/fedcases/ca10/cases/1998/07/97-3178a.htm

The en banc opinion, with concurrences and dissent is at:
http://lawlib.wuacc.edu/fedcases/ca10/cases/1999/01/97-3178.htm
________________________________________________________________
Get secure free e-mail that you don't need Web access to use
from Juno, the world's second largest online service.
Download your free software at http://www.juno.com/getit.b.html.