The truth about snitches: an archival analysis of informant testimony

Abstract

Informants are witnesses who often testify in exchange for an incentive (i.e. jailhouse informant, cooperating witness). Despite the widespread use of informants, little is known about the circumstances surrounding their use at trial. This study content-analyzed trials from 22 DNA exoneration cases involving 53 informants. Because these defendants were exonerated, the prosecution informant testimony is demonstrably false. Informant characteristics including motivation for testifying, criminal history, relationship with the defendant and testimony were coded. Most informants were prosecution jailhouse informants; however, there were also defence jailhouse informants and prosecution cooperating witnesses. Regardless of informant type, most denied receiving an incentive, had criminal histories, were friends/acquaintances of the defendant and had testimonial inconsistencies. In closing statements, attorneys relied on informant testimony by either emphasizing or questioning its reliability. The impact of informant testimony on jurors’ decisions is discussed in terms of truth-default theory (TDT), the fundamental attribution error and prosecutorial vouching.

Key words:

• jailhouse informant
• cooperating witness
• truth-default theory
• secondary confessions

Acknowledgements

The opinions, findings, conclusions and recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of the Innocence Project or Winston and Strawn, who provided case documentation. The dataset presented in this paper was also used in another paper submitted for publication in a law review: Melanie B. Fessinger, Brian H. Bornstein, Jeffrey S. Neuschatz, Danielle K. DeLoach, Megan A. Hillgartner, Stacy A. Wetmore, and Amy Bradfield Douglass, Informants v. Innocents: Informant Testimony and its Contribution to Wrongful Convictions (forthcoming and available from the authors). The analysis and presentation of the data between the two papers is distinct. The authors would like to thank Daniel Robertson, Alexa Mecikalski, Jake Davis, Matthew Ameduri, Sanah Hasan, McKenzie Aldean, Sydney Bebar, Caroline Yank, Hannah Kaufmann and Cassidy Tiberi for their tireless efforts in coding the trial transcripts.

Notes

1 This percentage was calculated by first dividing the number of accurate details by the total number of crime details for each jailhouse informant for the prosecution, then averaging.

2 The total is 11 instead of 10 because one of the cooperating witnesses presented two separate closing statements at two separate trials, so she was counted twice.