Materials - The Network of Trial Law Firms

(holding that trial court should give credibility instruction to jury whenever jailhouseinformant testimony is given “[i]n light of growing recognition of the inherentunreliability” of such testimony; Zappulla v. New York, 391 F.3d 462, 470, n. 3 (2d Cir.2004) (“numerous scholars and criminal justice experts have found the testimony by‘jailhouse snitches’ to be highly unreliable”); Dodd v. State, 993 P.2d 778, 784 (Okla.Crim.App. 2000) (adopting special procedures to use in cases involving jailhouseinformant testimony, including specific jury instruction); United States v. Bernal-Obeso,989 F.2d 331, 333 (9 th Cir. 1993) (“Criminal informants are cut from untrustworthy clothand must be managed and carefully watched by the government and the courts to preventthem from falsely accusing the innocent, from manufacturing evidence against thoseunder suspicion of crime, and from lying under oath in the courtroom.” See also Peter A.Joy, “Brady and Jailhouse Informants: Responding to Injustice,” 57 Case W. Res. L.Rev.619, 625 (noting that false testimony from these informants is one of the “majorcontributing causes to wrongful convictions.”)The “snitch” testimony given at Olson’s trial provides a telling example of whythe criminal justice system should be wary of such testimony. Most of the federaldefendants who claimed that Olson, for some reason, came running to them to confess hisinvolvement in Hamill’s death, admitted that they sought sentencing relief for themselvesafter testifying for the state at Olson’s trial. And Andrea George, a federal publicdefender, testified that about half of her clients engage in cooperation agreements withthe state because the federal sentencing guidelines provide for downward departures for