Why prosecutors should not rely on jailhouse snitches
In March 2008, Richard Gagnon was found guilty in Horry County of the murder of his girlfriend's mother and father, and he was sentenced to life in prison. The trial was televised live on Court TV, and I was surprised to hear most people who were following the story say that they thought he was innocent. Not just not guilty, but innocent. People on the street, people who left comments on the media blogs, even courthouse personnel felt that there was insufficient evidence that he had committed the crime, and were convinced that he would be found not guilty.
The girlfriend had been arrested and charged with the murder, then released and the charges dropped before Gagnon was charged. The evidence against him was circumstantial at best, there was DNA evidence placing someone else at the crime scene, and the state's case was based primarily on the testimony of a jailhouse snitch, Robert Mullins, who claimed that Gagnon had confessed to him while they were in jail. The jury convicted Gagnon, undoubtedly based on this witness' testimony.
Anytime the state needs to shore up their case, they can go down to the jail and round up some people that are willing to testify. In any high profile case, people with a) charges pending against them and b) information about the case, come out of the woodwork. Now, the Sun News reports that a new witness has come forward with information, writing to Gagnon's defense attorneys that Mullins was lying at Gagnon's trial.
Sometimes, the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not good enough to ensure that innocent persons are not convicted. When a person is accused of murder, armed robbery, or any serious offense, it is difficult for jurors to hold the state to their burden of proof, and the defendant truly has to prove his or her innocence. In most cases, the prosecutor has quite a bit of credibility with the jury, and they want to believe that what the prosecutor is saying is true. The prosecutor would not tell them this person is guilty if it were not true, and surely the prosecutor would not put a witness on the stand that would not tell the truth?
When there is scant evidence of guilt other than a jailhouse snitch, and there is DNA evidence placing another person at the scene of the crime, do we blame the prosecutor for going forward with a case knowing that the jury may convict an innocent person? In South Carolina the Solicitor is an elected official, the media is watching, and the public demands a conviction. I can understand why prosecutors go forward with these types of cases, and rely on defense attorneys, juries, and judges to ensure that justice is done. But justice in a criminal case begins with prosecutorial discretion.
Because of the problems that are inherent in the testimony of jailhouse snitches, prosecutors should not be permitted to use them at trial. Allowing prosecutors to obtain convictions based on testimony from jail informants is wrong. The testimony is unreliable and any conviction that is not corroborated by independently sufficient proof is suspect.
