We often read of evidence given in court cases where a fellow prisoner turns police witness and rats on his cellmate. This week it seems that what is referred to as " Prisoner A " recounted how police induced him to pretend that he knew a crooked cop who could transfer DNA onto a murder weapon to throw the investigation onto an entirely different person. It was hoped that this scheme would result in the remand prisoner revealing the whereabouts of the murder weapon as part of the plot.
Prisoner A also revealed that he had been paid almost $5,000 in weekly amounts of $ 500 and regular " Assistance Affidavits " that resulted in a twenty percent sentence reduction - for his "assistance " ! He also revealed that he would have to serve the balance of his sentence under maximum security because cooperating with police was the most heinous crime in the prison code of conduct. Every day he continued to extract information held the risk of discovery and had that happened he would have been taken to an empty cell or the shower block - and pumped full of holes. It would have been the end of him !
This evidence was given in a murder case that would be termed " sensational " and which is widely reported. There is no doubt that in the prison concerned it would not take too long for the dots to be connected and others realise just who Prisoner A happens to be, and who is now described as a "Dog " - the appendage that follows a police informer for life. No doubt he will be quickly released, but if he ever again becomes a prisoner his life will be on shaky ground.
It also raises the issue of ethics. Somehow it seems to tread that fine line that divides what is due process in solving crimes - and entrapment. In the majority of cases the evidence boils down to conversations between the police informer and the suspect, and this becomes what is termed "hearsay " ! When there is the inducement of both money and an abbreviated sentence there is a very definite reason for the informer to tell the police what they want to hear - and not necessarily the truth !
Even when a judge advises a jury to be aware of this disparity, in the absence of absolute evidence of guilt the suggestion that the accused has admitted the crime to another prisoner can sway the verdict in juror's minds. This is specially so if the person giving evidence has a confident demeanour and presents as a reliable witness. A witness who stands straight in the witness box, maintains eye contact with the jury and answers clearly and easily to all questions asked will often be more compelling than an accused, who may be both frightened and hesitant.
We pride ourselves on our system of dispensing justice An accused is entitled to the presumption of innocence - until convicted by a court, but can spend years on remand and treated as a convicted prisoner until the prosecution is ready to proceed.
An accused person is entitled to be represented by a trained legal person who will assist in the defence, but the quality of that defender will be determined by the means of the accused. If that defender is a lawyer appointed by the court then it will probably be a freshly minted new entrant to the bar with little court experience. Depending on the importance of the charge, the prosecution will draw from a stable of experienced lawyers and there may be a serious mismatch of skills between prosecution and defence.
Theoretically, the judge or magistrate hearing a case serves two roles. Not only does he or she have to bring in a finding of guilt or innocence, it requires a form of arbitration on the presentations of both the prosecution and defence counsels, the presentations being required to conform with the rules of evidence and the protocols that apply within the legal structure.
Paying or otherwise rewarding a prisoner serving a sentence to act as a proxy of the police in putting together a prosecution case seems a clear distortion of fair play. The accused is under duress by being locked away from home and loved ones and faces the prospect of a prison sentence at the end of a coming trial. In some cases, a confession may be extracted under duress. He or she may be frightened of a cell mate and may concoct a story to ease the pressure, using that confession as a form of self defence.
It seems to be an emerging prosecution tactic to deliberately coerce a compliant convicted inmate to serve as a police conduit, with the assistance of the prison authorities. Not only is this person foisted on the accused as a cell mate, attractive rewards are available for success and the police suggest courses of illegal strategies that may be employed to gather a response. To many people, that is the classic definition of entrapment.
Perhaps it is time the judiciary laid down hard and fast rules as to how such evidence should be treated - and what rules of conduct in it's collection should apply !
No comments:
Post a Comment