Stay tuned for IPMN’s upcoming CLE (date pending) featuring Greg Hampikian, whose work in the field of forensic DNA analysis played a pivotal role in overturning the murder conviction of Amanda Knox. Hampikian examined the case and found that there was no conclusive DNA evidence connecting Knox to the crime.
In more than 15% of DNA exonerations, a snitch or informant testified against the defendant to help secure a conviction.
People have been wrongly convicted in cases where the snitch:
- Was paid to testify
- Testified in exchange for being released from prison
- Testified that they overheard a confession or witnessed the crime
It comes as no surprise that snitches lie or fabricate on the stand. For a desperate, unemployed inmate, incentives like a shortened sentence or payment are very appealing. When faced with possible jail time, snitches will testify on the prosecutor’s behalf as a means to avoid incarceration. Their testimony can literally make or break a case when no other hard evidence is involved.
REMEDIES
Reforms are needed that do not weigh unreliable snitch testimony so heavily for juries. Possible remedies are: assessing the credibility of the informant and revealing their prior history to the jury, electronically record all meetings with the informant, and ensure the snitch does not have access to sensitive case information.
Learn about other innocence related issues.
