- This topic has 1 reply, 1 voice, and was last updated 3 days, 9 hours ago by
.
-
Posts
-
[ARCHIVE ANSWER]
Informants do not have to testify in most State cases but all informants must testify in Federal cases.From a
dude:Not entirely true.
My informant didnt have to testify, i took a plea like 98% of federal cases.
Some handlers CAN and DO routinely protect productive snitches, or career snitches.
All they have to tell the prosecution is that revealing the source in this case a C.I.
(Confidential and they try to keep it that way.) is that the snitch in question is involved with other cases and the exposure could jeopardize them. (officers or agents.)
Remember this, prosecutors generally only use C.I.'s as a last resort, (unreliable) or if they have more than one, with sketchy physical evidence, they'll set you up for conspiracy. If the feds dont have enough evidence to convict, they usually go the conspiracy route. It is very easy for them to do that. Very easy. States vary. Hearsay is the realm of the C.I. That alone is not enough in most states. At least the ones who havent adopted federal practice. Chances are, they would use a snitches testimony only if it can be corroborated with physical evidence or some strong circumstantial.
Yes you do have the right to confront your accusers. The prosecutor usually fills this role when the crime is truly "victimless". They speak for the State in general as the "victims". A C.I. doesnt have to fill that roll and often a written statement suffices for testimony if needed.
I personally know people who didnt find out who said what in Discovery or trial. A few found out years later.
Heres a simple way they hide snitches and keep them out of court while making cases. The snitch isnt on paper. Anonymous tip is quoted often. Or the officers just happened to observe some criminal activity. (Yeah right)
