The unreliable nature of informant testimony.

In the United States, we pride ourselves on the notion that an individual is innocent until proven guilty. However, wrongful convictions are a great, and common, injustice in the criminal legal system and the use of unreliable informants is one of the leading causes. Unreliable informants, specifically jailhouse informants, are typically persuaded to provide false testimony in exchange for some benefit, often in the form of a reduced sentence or better treatment. There are currently very few safeguards surrounding the use of jailhouse informants. Many jurisdictions’ only safeguard against the introduction of false testimony from these informants come in the form of a jury instruction directing jurors to assess the informant’s testimony and motives for testifying with greater scrutiny. However, research has shown that these instructions have not impacted how jurors sentence defendants.

The National Registry of Exonerations reports that “jailhouse informants testified against 7% of all exonerees in the Registry.” This amounts to 247 verified exonerees who were originally convicted through, at least in part, unreliable informant testimony. It is often through police and prosecutor interference that jailhouse informants come to fruition. Police and prosecutors recruit unreliable informants by providing incentives in exchange for testimony that aligns to strengthen their cases. The outcome is the very real possibility of an innocent person behind bars while the informant benefits from their false testimony and the true perpetrator walks free.

There are even cases of “career” jailhouse informants, such as Paul Skalnik, who testified in dozens of matters, four of which aided in death row sentences in Florida. Skalnik, who was incarcerated on numerous charges, such as child sexual abuse and fraud, gave falsified statements in over 37 cases between the years of 1981 and 1987. In many of those 37 cases, Skalnik testified against defendants that he had never even met. In return, he received many benefits, including, but not limited to, dismissed charges, prison protection, and sentence commutations. Skalnik’s role as an unreliable informant is typical, and unfortunately, Skalnik is not the only jailhouse informant whose false or unreliable testimony has led to wrongful convictions.  

However, this is not to say that every jailhouse informant is providing a false statement. The problem ultimately lies in the blind use of these informants without any reliable safeguards for directing and informing juries on how to weigh the informant’s testimony. A juror, without explicit instructions or knowledge of the interactions and possible benefits between the informant and the police, is likely to hold the informant’s testimony in high regard, as they would any other witness. Practitioners should be sure to check the credibility of informants and provide that information to all court actors to uphold the integrity of the legal system. Additionally, further investigation should be done to corroborate a potentially unreliable informant’s testimony to ensure the statement is accurate. Police should also be required to disclose all prior contact with the informant and provide a record of their interactions for the jury to consider when taking the testimony into account.

Currently, Life After Justice, an organization supporting individuals following a wrongful incarceration, is conducting further research on how these checks can be implemented. Overall, there are many more safeguards that can be put in place to protect vulnerable individuals from having false or unreliable informant testimony influence the outcome of their case.