9/27/2007

10 Comments »

1. It’s very much worth writing about if you’re privvy to actual knowledge of the case. A humngous amount of smoke has been blown over under and around it and few solid facts would be more than welcome.

   Comment by David Ehrenstein — 9/27/2007 @ 6:46 am

2. Yep, there are big credibility problems any time someone uses a jailhouse informant. Gotta wonder what their motive is and if they can be trusted. Probably oughta be a law… Oh, wait, I just remembered: It is the PROSECUTION that offers reduced sentences for “truthful” prisoner testimony (read - testimony that aligns with the prosecution theory) 99.9% of the time.

   Comment by nosh — 9/27/2007 @ 7:57 am

3. Yes, please write more. It isn’t often we get to see what’s behind the story….”

   Comment by Sue — 9/27/2007 @ 8:24 am

4. nosh

   You forgot to mention that prosecutors and police never make any effort to determine whether the informant’s information and testimony is corroborated by other evidence priot to presenting it in court.

   Prosecutors are motivated solely by the desire to see innocent people sent to jail, so they routinely resort to the use of blatantly false information for the sole purpose of increasing their conviction rates.

   Comment by wls — 9/27/2007 @ 8:27 am

5. wls –

   You couldn’t be completely unaware of the scandals involving the use of jailhouse informants by L.A. prosecutors during the ’70s and ’80s that were investigated in the ’90s and continue to some extent today. Prosecutors hear what they want to hear, and reward it.

   Comment by nosh — 9/27/2007 @ 8:59 am

6. From what I recall, there was lots of other evidence pointing to Mack as the killer (or, at least, involved in the killing). Please write about this!

   Comment by Susan — 9/27/2007 @ 11:50 am

7. This is starting to sound like a John Grisham book…

   Comment by kishnevi — 9/27/2007 @ 5:49 pm

8. nosh,

   Do you have any idea what our current policies are on the use of jailhouse informants?

   Yeah, I didn’t think so.

   Let me put it this way. I had a murder case. It was circumstantial. A guy from L.A. County Jail said he’d heard my defendant confess — and never even asked for permission.

   I would have had to ask for permission to call him as a witness. I concluded, on my own, that he was dishonest.

   Sorry to destroy your world view.

   Comment by Patterico — 9/27/2007 @ 8:58 pm

9. Patterico,

   You are so self-righteous that I’m surprised your wife can get to sleep with all of the light from the halo above your head. I’m certainly glad that you don’t use unreliable jailhouse testimony. But your office did for forty years or more, with dozens of convictions overturned or put into question by decades-late questioning and investigation.

   Thus the current policy. And your holier than thou posturing. Sure, P, it’s always about justice, nothing about winning. Thus you can opine “there’s hope for us next time” in the Spector case.

   Comment by nosh — 9/27/2007 @ 9:25 pm

10. nosh,

    You took a thread that had nothing to do with prosecution use of jailhouse informants, and made it about that topic. Then you made it sound as if prosecutors routinely use such testimony today. When I explain that that implication is nonsense, because the policy is so strict (and properly so, in light of the history you mention) — and I give an example to illustrate — you accuse me of “holier than thou posturing.”

    So I guess you can make any wild untrue allegation you like, and if I deny it, then I’m bragging about how great I am.

    Nice tactic . . . but I think the readers can easily see through it.

    Comment by Patterico — 9/28/2007 @ 5:12 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment