Some people might regard witnesses in criminal cases as heroes – brave souls who stand up to alleged criminals with powerful testimony. To others, these individuals are nothing more than “snitches” – opportunistic individuals who will do anything to survive. At the end of the day, context is important. Can you really trust the testimony of someone who works out a deal with prosecutors? Is this testimony really valid if the witness receives a shorter sentence in return? New jury instruction on “incarcerated informant testimony” (ie. snitch testimony) sheds light on this complex issue, and you can discuss the subject further with a Massachusetts defense attorney.
In Commonwealth v. Paul Francis, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court dealt with a murder case where the key evidence was the testimony of an incarcerated informant. The informant claimed that Paul Francis had confessed to the crime while they were both in jail. The court expressed concerns about the reliability of such testimony, as informants often have incentives like reduced sentences in exchange for their cooperation. As a result, the court established a new requirement that juries must receive specific instructions to critically assess the credibility of incarcerated informants.
Case Background:
Paul Francis was convicted of a 1996 murder based largely on the testimony of an incarcerated informant, who alleged that Francis confessed to the killing while in prison. The informant's testimony became central to the prosecution’s case, raising concerns about the reliability of informant testimony—particularly when such witnesses may be incentivized by the possibility of sentence reductions or other benefits. The case drew attention to the broader issue of wrongful convictions tied to informant testimony, which is often difficult to verify independently.
Court’s Decision:
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that juries must receive tailored instructions on how to evaluate the testimony of incarcerated informants. These instructions should emphasize the need for jurors to approach such testimony with caution, considering factors like the informant's potential motives and the possibility of fabrication. The decision represents a significant step in strengthening protections against wrongful convictions and ensuring that juries are fully informed about the inherent risks associated with informant testimony.
This new jury instruction requirement seeks to mitigate the risk of wrongful convictions that stem from unreliable or incentivized informant testimony, marking a significant development in Massachusetts’ legal landscape.
Can a Boston Defense Attorney Help Me Address Snitch Testimony?
Edward R. Molari can help defendants approach witness testimony with confidence. Although it might seem daunting to face testimony from someone who claims to have knowledge of your alleged crimes, various strategies could be helpful in this scenario. Contact our law firm today to learn more about your legal options alongside an experienced Boston defense lawyer.