In Jailhouse Snitch Testimony: A Policy Review (pdf), The Justice Project offers recommendations and solutions for improving the standards of admissibility of in-custody informant or “snitch” testimony. The policy review includes information on snitch testimony policy and law, case studies, states and jurisdictions which have enacted successful methods for safeguarding against perjured testimony, voices of support, a model policy, and key statistics. Hardcopies of the policy review are available on request. If you are working directly on this issue in your state, or you would like additional information, please contact info@thejusticeproject.org.
The use of jailhouse snitch testimony has been widely used throughout the American criminal justice system. Unfortunately jailhouse snitches are often utilized by prosecutors despite their testimony being widely regarded as the least reliable form of evidence in the criminal justice system. A 2005 study of 111 death row exonerees found that 51 were wrongly sentenced to death in part due to testimony of witnesses with incentive to lie.
The motive to fabricate testimony is inherent in a system that rewards snitching for personal gain. When the state offers a benefit in exchange for testimony, whether that benefit is explicitly stated or, as is often the case, implied, the incentive for an incarcerated person to fabricate evidence dramatically increases. With little to lose and much to gain, jailhouse snitches are often desperate to attain compensation – such as sentence reductions or even an agreement that they not be prosecuted at all – in exchange for testimony against another person.
Fabricated snitch testimony that leads to wrongful convictions 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.
By improving the standards for admissibility of jailhouse informant evidence at trial, states can help ensure that finders of fact are able to make more informed decisions when life and death are at stake. The Justice Project has identified a number of recommendations to help guard against perjured testimony including:
- Written pretrial disclosures of witness compensation arrangements and other information bearing on witness credibility.
- Pretrial hearings on the reliability of a particular informant’s testimony.
- A requirement that accomplice or in-custody informant testimony be corroborated.
- Cautionary jury instructions alerting the jury to the reliability issues presented by snitch testimony.
These reforms increase the transparency and openness of the process and help ensure that the most reliable evidence is making it into the courtroom and before the jury.
With codified requirements for determining the reliability of jailhouse informant testimony, law enforcement, prosecutors, and the community all benefit from stronger prosecutions, more efficient proceedings, and more reliable outcomes in criminal cases.
Related Studies:
The following materials are essential reading for individuals interested in improving and enhancing the use of snitch testimony:
The Snitch System: How Snitch Testimony Sent Randy Steidk and Other Innocent Americans to Death Row, A Center on Wrongful Convictions Survey, Northwestern University School of Law (Winter 2004-2005).
Mills, Steve and Ken Armstrong. “The Failure of the Death Penalty in Illinois - Part 3: The jailhouse Informant.” Chicago Tribune November 16, 1999.
Natapoff, A. “Snitching: The Institutional and Communal Consequences.” University of Cincinnati Law Review 73 (2004): 645-702.
Motion to Exclude Accomplice/Snitch Testimony, Sample Motion 59, Louisiana Indigent Defense Board, (last visited September 12, 2007).
Motion to Preclude Creation of Snitch Testimony, Sample Motion 58, Louisiana Indigent Defense Board, (last visited September 12, 2007).
Related Cases:
The Marietta Seven:
James Creamer and six co-defendants were wrongfully convicted of a murder in Marietta, Georgia almost entirely on the word of a jailhouse snitch, Deborah Ann Kidd. Six of the seven were sentenced to life, and Creamer received a death sentence. Transcripts of inconsistencies in Kidd’s statements were withheld from the defense. In 1975, the convictions of the Marietta Seven were reversed, and the state dropped all charges. Despite the dropped charges, the District Attorney declined to prosecute Kidd for perjury.
Read about the Marietta Seven
Wilton Dedge:
Arrested at age 20, Wilton Dedge spent 22 years in prison for the rape of a seventeen-year-old Florida woman before DNA testing finally proved his innocence. The prosecution relied heavily on identification testimony by the victim and that of a jailhouse informant who testified that Dedge had confessed to committing the crimes. After years of fighting for a DNA test, Dedge won his freedom in August 2004.
Read about Wilton Dedge
A Snitch’s Story:
On October 27, 1988, Leslie Vernon White, who has provided testimony in as many as 40 cases, described the process by which inmate informers fabricate evidence. White received widespread attention after an appearance on 60 Minutes (and coverage in other national news sources) where he claimed that he often lied when giving testimony as a jailhouse informant. In an interview with Time Magazine, White, a self-confessed career criminal, had this to say about his prison stints: “Every time I come in here, I inform, and I get back out.
Read about Leslie Vernon White
