- Champion Article
Informers are government witnesses, and their testimony is untrustworthy due to their self-interested motives. Though it is common for pattern jury instruction to include some note of caution about informers’ testimony, no instruction sufficiently alerts the jury to the incentives informers are given to lie. How can counsel fight against cooperation agreement provisions that prejudice the defendant?
President Gerald Goldstein's written statement to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and House Government Reform and Oversight Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs and Criminal Justice regarding government and law enforcement conduct in the 1993 confrontation between Branch Davidians and law enforcement in Waco, TX, and proposed changes in Exclusionary Rule Reform Act of 1995 (H.R. 666) and Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Improvement Act of 1995 (S. 3).
Amicus curiae brief of the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Southern California, ACLU of Northern California and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of Respondent.
Argument: An office-wide practice of not vetting false jailhouse informant testimony was an administrative decision sufficiently attenuated from line prosecutors’ litigation duties to preclude absolute immunity from civil suit.