Post by Master-9 on May 12, 2004 17:51:39 GMT -5
Tribal News: Snitches Don’t Always Get Stitches
The government is promoting through the use of government informants. By the usage of Sentencing guideline 5K-1 and Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, people are getting time off of their sentence in exchange for testimony against someone else. The problem? Innocent people are filling the jails because of lies in the testimony of government informants. Many people are...
getting 25, 30, 40 years knocked off of their sentence in exchange sending someone else to jail. Everyday, informants set people up to do time for crimes they didn’t commit.
United States Sentencing Guideline 5K-1 allows for a downward departure at sentencing for providing “substantial assistance” to authorities. A downward departure means that a person can get less time than the mandatory minimum for their crimes. Then after sentencing, the government can file a Rule 35 motion to get the sentence reduced. In fact, each time the informant “cooperates” with the government they can get more and more time taken off by the Rule 35 motion being filed each time.
This means an innocent person could find themselves in jail at the word of an informant who is trying to get immunity or less time for crimes they have committed; the same type of “favorable concessions” given to witnesses in the case against Malachi York. Testimony was bought in the form of financial compensation or immunity.
We are not alone in the fight against injustice in the judicial system! In the case United States v. Singleton, 144 F.3d 1343, lawyer John Val Wachtel, stood up against this practice. He challenged the use of informants by the government because he thought “the practice is morally wrong and clearly illegal.” The legal basis of this argument against informants is found in 18 USC 201(c)(2), which makes bribery of witnesses a crime. In the Singleton case, Wachtel filed a motion to suppress the testimony of witnesses to whom the government has offered inducements. This case got widespread attention when the panel of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the offer of leniency in sentencing made by the governement is in violation of 18 USC 201. Although this decision did get overturned, it marks the most notable case that this destructive practice was challenged and shows that others are standing up against it.
The government is promoting through the use of government informants. By the usage of Sentencing guideline 5K-1 and Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, people are getting time off of their sentence in exchange for testimony against someone else. The problem? Innocent people are filling the jails because of lies in the testimony of government informants. Many people are...
getting 25, 30, 40 years knocked off of their sentence in exchange sending someone else to jail. Everyday, informants set people up to do time for crimes they didn’t commit.
United States Sentencing Guideline 5K-1 allows for a downward departure at sentencing for providing “substantial assistance” to authorities. A downward departure means that a person can get less time than the mandatory minimum for their crimes. Then after sentencing, the government can file a Rule 35 motion to get the sentence reduced. In fact, each time the informant “cooperates” with the government they can get more and more time taken off by the Rule 35 motion being filed each time.
This means an innocent person could find themselves in jail at the word of an informant who is trying to get immunity or less time for crimes they have committed; the same type of “favorable concessions” given to witnesses in the case against Malachi York. Testimony was bought in the form of financial compensation or immunity.
We are not alone in the fight against injustice in the judicial system! In the case United States v. Singleton, 144 F.3d 1343, lawyer John Val Wachtel, stood up against this practice. He challenged the use of informants by the government because he thought “the practice is morally wrong and clearly illegal.” The legal basis of this argument against informants is found in 18 USC 201(c)(2), which makes bribery of witnesses a crime. In the Singleton case, Wachtel filed a motion to suppress the testimony of witnesses to whom the government has offered inducements. This case got widespread attention when the panel of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the offer of leniency in sentencing made by the governement is in violation of 18 USC 201. Although this decision did get overturned, it marks the most notable case that this destructive practice was challenged and shows that others are standing up against it.
. It was HELL!!! 