Should witnesses not be allowed to make deals in court cases, cause it influences their testimony? (interview, illegal)

[ironpony]

Basically in a lot of court cases over the years, all around the country, and abroad, I noticed that a lot of times witnesses will make a deal with the prosecution, such as have charges against them dropped, if they testify against the defendant in another case.

But this leads to witnesses lying and perjuring themselves a lot it seems. Like for example, there was a court case, where a woman was guilty of a crime (I think it was drug possession, or something like that), but she was able to get the charges dropped in exchange for testifying to a murder she witnesses, pointing out the killer.

Later it was established that she pointed out the wrong killer and the real killer was someone else, after that innocent person was already convicted based on her testimony.

There was another case, where the police were after a murderer and they offered a large reward to whoever could turn in the killer. A person called in for the reward and said she saw the killer, later collecting on the reward, and then later it turned out that the person she pointed as out the killer she saw, was not the person there at the scene that day.

So I feel that a lot of witnesses lie to get deals, or are given an ultimatum by the prosecutor, otherwise charges against them will not be dropped, so they are pressured to send an innocent person to prison, therefore.

I feel that it should be made illegal for witnesses in court to get deals, and the witness testimony should be completely voluntary of the witness without any influence or ultimatums, that could cause them to feel pressure to commit perjury.

But maybe I'm wrong? What do you think?

[hellob]

If deals weren't made, people would have no reason to help cops. Snitches are a cop's BFF.
The words of a criminal witness is supposed to have additional corroboration/evidence. If you and I robbed a bank and I got a deal, they'd have to get other evidence than just my statement to convict you.

[Eumaois]

Originally Posted by ironpony

Basically in a lot of court cases over the years, all around the country, and abroad, I noticed that a lot of times witnesses will make a deal with the prosecution, such as have charges against them dropped, if they testify against the defendant in another case.

But this leads to witnesses lying and perjuring themselves a lot it seems. Like for example, there was a court case, where a woman was guilty of a crime (I think it was drug possession, or something like that), but she was able to get the charges dropped in exchange for testifying to a murder she witnesses, pointing out the killer.

Later it was established that she pointed out the wrong killer and the real killer was someone else, after that innocent person was already convicted based on her testimony.

There was another case, where the police were after a murderer and they offered a large reward to whoever could turn in the killer. A person called in for the reward and said she saw the killer, later collecting on the reward, and then later it turned out that the person she pointed as out the killer she saw, was not the person there at the scene that day.

So I feel that a lot of witnesses lie to get deals, or are given an ultimatum by the prosecutor, otherwise charges against them will not be dropped, so they are pressured to send an innocent person to prison, therefore.

I feel that it should be made illegal for witnesses in court to get deals, and the witness testimony should be completely voluntary of the witness without any influence or ultimatums, that could cause them to feel pressure to commit perjury.

But maybe I'm wrong? What do you think?

I do agree that witnesses should be held to a similar standard as the accused/their partner-in-crime. There should be a fine print that applies to every case (barring health issues): "if you are lying, you will get a similar sentence as the accused. This applies especially If you pointed out the wrong person on purpose."

[Rescue3]

If I could offer an opinion, having put hundreds of witnesses on the stand for the prosecution, some of whom got deals.

Every single witness, whether they get a deal or not, gets told that if they lie and I can prove it, they are going to jail. The only witnesses I have ever seen knowingly lie on the stand were defense witnesses. The one doctor I caught lying before a federal judge, the prosecutor told me to forget it because the judge knew he was lying and gave his testimony exactly zero credit. (I still wanted to lock him up.)

As to deals, there are three things that we do with every witness who catches a deal. First, we put them in front of the grand jury and lock in their testimony under oath. Second, their deal is conditional on their testifying truthfully. If they lie, their deal evaporates - and they know it. In writing. Third, we tell the jury that this witness got a deal, and the judge advises the jury to consider that fact when as they listen to the witness's testimony and judges their credibility.

The reason we give deals is that when a crime occurs because of two people, and one is under arrest, we need the testimony of the second person to provide the details that show all the elements of the offense were committed. But for that other person, the first guy isn't going to get convicted, and he returns to society to offend some more. Our job is to keep that bad guy from offending some more. So we really have to give deals to get the bad guys locked up. My favorite saying in the interview room was, "First one in the door wins..." because you cannot make a conspiracy case without inside testimony. Not possible. One of the five elements of that crime is that the conspirators were "of a similar mind." You cannot get that testimony from any other source than someone within the conspiracy. Just isn't possible.

We do try (not always successfully) to go up the criminal food chain, where we give the deal to the less culpable person against the more culpable person. We usually get it right, but admittedly, not always. Sorry - but we do try really hard to get it right.

The OP noted a case where a female identified the wrong person as the offender. That happens more often than you would think, and it usually has little to do with whether or not the witness got a deal. Stop and think that half the country has an IQ of 100 or better, and the other half has an IQ of 100 or less. Guess who we wind up with as defendants and witnesses in run-of-the-mill drug cases or stupid street crime cases? Yup - the latter. They make mistakes.

Another poster said that "snitches" are a police officer's best friend. Not really - and I never, ever use that word. Informants (we call them 'sources' and consider them to be part-time employees) not only have to comply with all of the rules we apply to people who get deals, but they routinely get polygraphed, searched and their efforts are tightly controlled by the handling agent or officer. When I send a source into a crack house to buy dope, he gets searched before and after, polygraphed and placed in front of a grand jury to record his testimony. Not all agencies are as (ahem...) a*** retentive as we were, but I have never had a source go south on me on the stand.

So that is why we give deals and how we try very hard to ensure that their testimony is as truthful as they are capable of giving. There is the crooked cop out there somewhere who abuses the process, but 99 out of 100 of us try very hard to get it right.

Thanks to the OP for raising the question. Happy to shed some light on how it is supposed to work.

[ironpony]

Okay thanks, well your rules are better than some. Basically the reason why I thought of this was a courtcase where I live where a prosecution witness was given immunity for his testimony, but then later it was discovered that he lied. The court couldn't charge with perjury because he was given immunity, which pertained to perjury as well, so he walked with no consequence.

There was also another case, of a prosecution witness who was offered I think $4000 dollars to testify. Basically an add was put out for whoever can tell them who the murderer was, and he lied saying it was someone he knew, cause he was desperate for money, and an innocent person went to jail.

Later it was discovered he lied, and he admitted that he was desperate for the money. Still, he walked and no charges were filed for perjury. This was the same case where the female witness liked as well. She was blackmailed into cutting a deal cause she wanted to be exonerated for other crimes she was in trouble for. She walked too, for perjury.

So it seems perjury is not taken seriously sometimes by the courts.

Now you say that her lying probably had nothing to do with her cutting a deal, but I bet if she wasn't in trouble for other crimes, she wouldn't have even bothered to give any testimony, let alone false testimony. I bet it wouldn't have even occurred to her to ID a killer in another case, if she wasn't already in trouble for something, and was looking for a way out.

However, if snitched are polygraphed routinely, then why isn't the same thing done for supposed eyewitnesses?

[Rescue3]

I haven't worked a state court in over forty years, but there are a couple of concepts that apply in all courts - federal and state.

First, testimonial immunity is best thought of as a contract. If the witness lies, he voids his contract. I cannot imagine a court that would accept perjured testimony and then not prosecute the witness because they had testimonial immunity. Sure wouldn't happen at the federal level, but then we had a lot of safeguards in place before the witness ever took the oath. But in all cases, perjury voids testimonial immunity. I know of no exceptions to that rule - anywhere.

Second (expert witnesses aside), you cannot pay for testimony - in any court. When an expert witness is paid for his or her professional opinion, the jury is so informed. Fact witnesses are not allowed to offer an opinion, so they cannot get anything other than the straight witness fee, which was $35 per day, last time I approved the vouchers. And both defense and prosecution witnesses get the exact same amount.

Citizens can sometimes get reward money for information leading to the arrest and conviction of an offender in a particular crime, but that doesn't come from the prosecutor's office. It might come from a municipality, a community organization or the law enforcement office that is trying to solve the case, but it does not come from the court or the prosecutor. If someone commits perjury just to get that reward money, that is a separate offense that should always be prosecuted.

[ironpony]

Okay thanks, that makes sense. However, in a particular case where I live, when the witness lied, the contract was not void, and it turned out, the witness still had immunity from being charged with perjury (shrug).

That's what I meant, is that the witness was given reward money, which lead to the arrest. However, that same witness, had to testify on the stand later, and commit perjury, cause otherwise, they were afraid they were going to take his money away, if he said he lied, so he had to keep the lie going in order to keep the money.

He was not prosecuted for some reason, later on, when it was discovered he lied.

[mortgageboss]

If I were a defense attorney, I would stress the deal the snitch got. All you need is to plant the seed of reasonable doubt in a couple of jurors.