Confidential informants
Although related to the discussion of jailhouse snitches, I have separate and distinct issues with confidential informants. When I talk about confidential informants, I am referring to individuals who will go out and wear a wire to make drug buys, or otherwise provide information to the police in exchange for a promise of reduced charges or reduced jail time.
First of all, putting people to work for the police and endangering their lives in the process is a disgusting by-product of the failed war on drugs. Police do not use only "hardened criminals" for this task, but they use anyone that they can. Sometimes they make good on their promises to these people and sometimes they do not, and sometimes these people get hurt in the process. Whenever I have a client who wants to "work off their charges," I attempt to dissuade them. I tell these clients that I once represented a client who was charged with murder, for allegedly chasing down a CI and emptying his gun into her head. The bottom line is that I, and their family, would rather see them in prison than see them dead.
Which creates a bit of a conflict for me in representing confidential informants, as well as cooperating co-defendants and jailhouse snitches. The first for the reasons above, and the latter two because I feel that their coerced testimony is destroying the integrity of our justice system. But, there is a conflict with my conflict. If I am to provide the most effective defense possible, aren't these individuals entitled to my assistance in gaining them every advantage possible within the system the way it currently is?
If it is a retained case, I can certainly enter into an agreement with them prior to representation that they understand I will not represent informants, and that if a situation arises where they may benefit from informing I will assist them to find other counsel before I withdraw from their case. But I don't think that I can ethically do this in appointed cases. Appointed clients have no choice as to who their counsel is, and there is no agreement that we enter into prior to my accepting their case. The court says take this case, I accept it without question unless there is a conflict with other clients, and then I do everything I can to help the appointed client.
This is an issue that I don't have an answer for yet. My position right now is that I will attempt to discourage my clients from cooperating or informing, but I also make sure that they fully understand any benefits that they may gain from it. It is their decision, and if they decide to inform or cooperate I will reluctantly support them. At some point in the future I may change my policy on this, but I need more soul-searching and input from other defense attorneys. I am interested in hearing how others deal with this dilemma, or if it is even a dilemma for others.
