Federal drug informant pleads guilty to lying about drug deals
Not that this is surprising news, but a "reliable" confidential drug informant pleaded guilty today in federal court in Atlanta, Georgia to lying to federal drug agents about drug deals. The Atlanta Journal Constitution has the story.
Any defense lawyer who has tried a drug case in federal court can tell you about snitches. In virtually every federal drug case (especially those involving drug conspiracy charges), the government will call informants to testify. Sometimes the informants are paid by the government, sometimes they are trying to avoid being charged by cooperating. The most common type of informant, however, is the co-defendant who has already pleaded guilty and is hoping for a reduction in his sentence pursuant to Section 5K1.1 of the federal sentencing guidelines.
Defendants who are facing time for federal drug charges have a strong motivation to do whatever the government asks them to do. It is one of only two ways to avoid a draconian mandatory minimum sentence; and it is the only way to avoid a mandatory minimum if the person already has a record.
The problem is that informants in drug cases are generally not the most credible people to begin with (most have long criminal records). When these informants are offered the chance to cut their sentence by several years for "cooperating," you often end up with some highly dubious testimony, and more often than not, some questionable convictions.
There is no way to tell how many people have been convicted based on informants who have lied. Our firm is often asked to handle federal criminal appeals where the person was convicted of federal drug charges based solely on informant and co-defendant testimony. Unfortunately, the defense lawyer who tried the case could only try to impeach the informant with his criminal record and his plea deal with the government. It is very difficult to prove that an informant is actually lying unless the defense lawyer has access to the same information the government has. But that doesn't happen in federal court.
There is some good news. I tried a federal drug case recently where the government's evidence against my client was based almost entirely on the testimony of five informants who were given deals to testify. Despite the testimony of these five witnesses, the jury did not convict my client. Several of the jurors told me afterwards that they did not believe the informants. They said they placed very little weight on their testimony because they thought the informants had a strong motivation to lie. I was pleased to hear that, and I've been told by other federal criminal lawyers that they have heard the same thing from their jurors.
But the best way to stop informants from lying is to stop rewarding them for it and start prosecuting them. Maybe the prosecution of this informant in Atlanta will be the first of many. I know there is no shortage of lying informants out there if the government wants to pursue them.
