Terzano was arguing that informants whose testimony will be compensated by money, reduced charges or more lenient sentences for other crimes they've committed should be subjected to a pre-trial reliability hearing in which a judge, outside the purview of the jury, makes an independent determination whether the informant is a reliable source.I like the idea of determining snitch credibility, especially with such classy characters as Letcher Gray out there. But my distrust of judge credibility is strong enough to make me question why the vetting doesn't take place in front of the jury.
[Via Cris C]
3 comments:
Precisely. The circumstances under which an informant becomes an informant are material to his or her credibility, and should be admissible.
Because "they" have something to hide.
I have little respect for many judges today. Look at the farce of a judge that the NYC mayor has in his pocket doing his dirty work. This federal judge has had to have his rulings over ruled by higher courts.
How about just telling the jury that the witness is a lying piece of shit who is a criminal who can't not be believed.
Judges will say, "I believe this low life piece of trash because the wonderful police officer have giving me their words that he's not lying this time".
Post a Comment