Why do cops and prosecutors still try to use paid informants and jailhouse snitches in trials?

Question

I was on a jury recently (drug case) where the main evidence against the suspect was a jailhouse snitch who had probably gotten a reduced sentence in exchange for his cooperation.

The scary thing is, the jury was ready to convict when we went in for deliberations, but I carefully and patiently explained to the other jurors why jailhouse snitches should never be trusted in cases like this.

I eventually got four other jurors on my side, and the other jurors eventually just gave up and went along with us (they were tired and wanted to go home).

We returned with a not guilty verdict. Not just a hung jury - an outright acquittal.

Anyway, why do cops and prosecutors think that everyone will fall for their liar jailhouse snitches? More and more Americans are waking up to this shameful tactic.

Answer 1

Prosecutors, unlike cops, are advocates. They use whatever they think will win their case. The problem is with our advesarial system which does not seek the truth but seeks a win, on either side.

Because of that most of us cops in my area have convinced our criminal court judges not to swear us in to "tell the whole truth" since we are prevented from doing that by the rules of the courts. We can only answer what is asked of us and must leave out what a judge has previously decided we have to.



As a cop I deeply checked out anyone trying to give me info. I had a number of paid informants and they led to getting some very dangerous people off the street. I said they led to, they were never ever my only source. Everything they told me was, and had to be for me to use it, confirmed in other ways.

Answer 2

Dear,



In reply to your question, Why do cops and prosecutors still try to use paid informants and jailhouse snitches in trials?, I tell you that you might get some help from http://inquirelawyers.com



As you described; "I was on a jury recently (drug case) where the main evidence against the suspect was a jailhouse snitch who had probably gotten a reduced sentence in exchange for his cooperation. The scary thing is, the jury was ready to convict when we went in for deliberations, but I carefully and patiently explained to the other jurors why jailhouse snitches should never be trusted in cases like this. I eventually got four other jurors on my side, and the other jurors eventually just gave up and went along with us (they were tired and wanted to go home). We returned with a not guilty verdict. Not just a hung jury - an outright acquittal. Anyway, why do cops and prosecutors think that everyone will fall for their liar jailhouse snitches? More and more Americans are waking up to this shameful tactic." it might help you.



Good Luck :)

Answer 3

You were read the instruction telling you that all witnesses are to be presumed credible until something shows they aren't, right?



And it's good to hear that you're ok with jurors throwing in the towel because they're tired.



"probably gotten a reduced sentence in exchange for his cooperation."



Also nice to see a juror drawing an inference based on nothing. If this was the case, the defense attorney would have brought it out (it would have been admissible to show bias.)



So you can stop patting yourself on the back, since you (a) completely ignored jury instructions (b) settled for fellow jurors abandoning their principles due to fatigue, and (c)drew inferences based on no evidence.

Answer 4

I've NEVER understood how the testimony of a convicted criminal was admissible in a court of law...and if on a jury would NOT base my decision on it. The first answerer was dead on by saying that the prosecution is not interested in the truth...only the win. They like to call defense attorneys 'ambulance chasers', and deride them for defending the gulity...well I think that prosecutors are bloodless headhunters who don't care if they convict the innocent...which in my book is just as bad...if not, worse.



EDIT: And as far as juror intructions to presume a witness credible until proven otherwise...in my opinion, being incarcerated themselves...with a VERY vested interest in saying what the prosecution wants them to is proof enough for me to disregard their credibility right off the bat...or at the very least...instill reasonable doubt that their testimony can be relied upon.