Snitches

[Tim Kordas]

> 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.
[ . . . ]
> 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.  

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Is it just me, or is the following
(from the first paragraph of the decision) a very very strange interpretation
of the law:

" . . . has now reheard the appeal. We now hold 18 U.S.C 201(c)(2) does not 
apply to the United States or an Assistant United States Attorney functioning 
within the official scope of the office."

So US Attorneys can buy off witnesses as much as they want ?

The decision uses a weird reductio ad absurdum argument. I find
the judges' use of the common law and "established practice" argument
more convincing (especially the concurring judge's citation of the
Witness Protection Program).

Interestingly (to this non-lawyer) is the citation of a case in 1873 in
which the decision references the British constitution.

Part of the dissenting opinion: "Criminal judgements are accepted by society
at large, and even by individual defendants, only because our system of
justice is painstakingly fair." The dissenters also go back to English common
law looking the history of the supposed historical precedent for leniency 
for testimony.

The decision is well worth reading.

-Tim
--
Timothy J. Kordas