Let's try this for openers . . .
Let’s try this, for starters:
The only country with a prison population greater than that in The United States is China, America’s new "buddy" in trade and commerce - - but not quite yet in human rights, by the way. (The "friendship" with China is understandable: as I’m sure you know, China holds more American currency reserves, and more Treasury bonds, than any other country in the world, including The United States itself.)
In the federal court system (putting aside the systems of each individual state, which we’ll leave for other times, and for comments from you), some seven cases out of every ten (and perhaps, slightly more: statistics are understandably difficult to come by) are"made" (i.e. developed and then prosecuted) using the testimony of informants.
Said another way: the notion of "old-fashioned" investigation by police and law-enforcement agents to gather evidence of supposedly-criminal conduct has essentially been discarded. Forget what you see on "C.S.I. Miami" and the other police-oriented shows on television: it just simply doesn’t happen that way. Even when I was a prosecutor myself, more than twenty-five years ago, the trend was already beginning: while violent crimes required then, and still require now, physical evidence to a great extent (ballistic examinations, shell-casing comparisons and matches, blood and DNA matching, fingerprints, and scene photographs, among other categories), virtually every other class of case, from drug crimes to economic crimes and everything in between, is "made" through the use of informants.
Here are the lovely parts: (1) in a large percentage of informant-made cases (let’s say, 95%), informants are paid for their testimony. The coin of the realm (this realm, anyway)? Lighter sentences of their own - - extravagantly lighter sentences - - is preferred, but there’s also money (tons paid under the guise of "relocation expenses," "security expenses," "sustenance," and similar subterfuges); preferred treatment in federal jails and prisons (in one case recently, I learned of one "star" informant being taken out of the jail, to the federal prosecutors’ offices, and fed sushi for lunch, while in another, an informant who originally was exposed to a life prison sentence was allowed to stay out of jail for more than a year, after pleading guilty but before being sentenced, to continue to run his businesses, all of which happened to involve drug transportation); leniency for boyfriends, girlfriends, spouses, and kids; sexual favors and amusement, and, of course, drug use - - in one famous case, while actually in the prosecutors’ office itself (that was in Chicago, in the '90s).
(2) A large number of "informants" are pressured into lying, once recruited: either they’re simply told what their testimony should be, though without any first hand knowledge of relevant case facts whatsoever (yes, it really, really does happen), or, if their "versions" or recollections don’t match what their handling prosecutors and agents want from them, they’re simply told what to say (believe it!). Of course, nobody could be foolish enough to think anyone in that position has a choice because, once they’ve signed up and signed on, it’s common knowledge that if they don’t play the company game, they’re looking at fifteen and twenty and twenty-five years in jail. Hell, they’ve already pled guilty as part of their "deals," so for the most part, they have no place to run, no place to hide.
(3) Large numbers are allowed to continue to engage in their own criminal conduct with the knowledge and tacit approval of agents and prosecutors. An unfortunate percentage of the bench either refuses to hold prosecutors accountable (it’s a political thing, of course), or keeps itself wilfully blind to what’s going on. Worse yet, even though the law says that prosecutors have an obligation to tell the attorneys for accused people of misconduct of virtually any kind on the part of their witnesses, because, of course, it affects their credibility, which a criminally-accused, through his/her attorney is entitled to have a jury consider, prosecutors conceal that kind of information: winning, as the football coach said, is everything!
If you have any doubt about what I’ve said here and if you know any first-rate and seasoned specialist in the defense of criminal cases, ask him or her.
It’s the way it really is.
The only country with a prison population greater than that in The United States is China, America’s new "buddy" in trade and commerce - - but not quite yet in human rights, by the way. (The "friendship" with China is understandable: as I’m sure you know, China holds more American currency reserves, and more Treasury bonds, than any other country in the world, including The United States itself.)
In the federal court system (putting aside the systems of each individual state, which we’ll leave for other times, and for comments from you), some seven cases out of every ten (and perhaps, slightly more: statistics are understandably difficult to come by) are"made" (i.e. developed and then prosecuted) using the testimony of informants.
Said another way: the notion of "old-fashioned" investigation by police and law-enforcement agents to gather evidence of supposedly-criminal conduct has essentially been discarded. Forget what you see on "C.S.I. Miami" and the other police-oriented shows on television: it just simply doesn’t happen that way. Even when I was a prosecutor myself, more than twenty-five years ago, the trend was already beginning: while violent crimes required then, and still require now, physical evidence to a great extent (ballistic examinations, shell-casing comparisons and matches, blood and DNA matching, fingerprints, and scene photographs, among other categories), virtually every other class of case, from drug crimes to economic crimes and everything in between, is "made" through the use of informants.
Here are the lovely parts: (1) in a large percentage of informant-made cases (let’s say, 95%), informants are paid for their testimony. The coin of the realm (this realm, anyway)? Lighter sentences of their own - - extravagantly lighter sentences - - is preferred, but there’s also money (tons paid under the guise of "relocation expenses," "security expenses," "sustenance," and similar subterfuges); preferred treatment in federal jails and prisons (in one case recently, I learned of one "star" informant being taken out of the jail, to the federal prosecutors’ offices, and fed sushi for lunch, while in another, an informant who originally was exposed to a life prison sentence was allowed to stay out of jail for more than a year, after pleading guilty but before being sentenced, to continue to run his businesses, all of which happened to involve drug transportation); leniency for boyfriends, girlfriends, spouses, and kids; sexual favors and amusement, and, of course, drug use - - in one famous case, while actually in the prosecutors’ office itself (that was in Chicago, in the '90s).
(2) A large number of "informants" are pressured into lying, once recruited: either they’re simply told what their testimony should be, though without any first hand knowledge of relevant case facts whatsoever (yes, it really, really does happen), or, if their "versions" or recollections don’t match what their handling prosecutors and agents want from them, they’re simply told what to say (believe it!). Of course, nobody could be foolish enough to think anyone in that position has a choice because, once they’ve signed up and signed on, it’s common knowledge that if they don’t play the company game, they’re looking at fifteen and twenty and twenty-five years in jail. Hell, they’ve already pled guilty as part of their "deals," so for the most part, they have no place to run, no place to hide.
(3) Large numbers are allowed to continue to engage in their own criminal conduct with the knowledge and tacit approval of agents and prosecutors. An unfortunate percentage of the bench either refuses to hold prosecutors accountable (it’s a political thing, of course), or keeps itself wilfully blind to what’s going on. Worse yet, even though the law says that prosecutors have an obligation to tell the attorneys for accused people of misconduct of virtually any kind on the part of their witnesses, because, of course, it affects their credibility, which a criminally-accused, through his/her attorney is entitled to have a jury consider, prosecutors conceal that kind of information: winning, as the football coach said, is everything!
If you have any doubt about what I’ve said here and if you know any first-rate and seasoned specialist in the defense of criminal cases, ask him or her.
It’s the way it really is.
posted by DLWMiami at 4:24 PM
1 comments
