The Snitch at Trial
The Snitch at Trial
The Snitch at Trial
"efense lawyers fre+uently miss the o aid witness for the rosecution. damning the testimony is for the defendant.
ortunity to ortray the coo erating witness as what he is: a In your cross&e(amination, establish that the defendant has As' the %hen mo$e into the witness#s e( ectations
not aid the witness. It is the rosecutor alone who has the ability to offer the witness freedom. defendant how $aluable a year of freedom would be to him. for freedom in e(change for his testimony. witness is being aid for his testimony.
,or the .ury, this will ut into monetary terms .ust what the
the .ury than s ea'ing about mere leniency in e(change for testimony.
witness will almost always ortray himself as some unwitting follower who sim ly !fell in with the wrong In your cross&e(amination, then, you must de$elo the theme that the witness is part of the bad crowd; that the witness was the leader; and he knew fully well what the plan was from the very beginning. )stablish that the witness was resent for the lanning stages. )stablish the strong historical bond between the witness and your client. %he rosecutor will then argue to the .ury that this only ma'es the snitch more
credible. !It#s got to be difficult,! the rosecutor will argue, !for the witness to testify against his good friend.! %hat is correct& it is difficult6 but it is a lot easier than ta'ing the blame himself. e(amination, did the witness retend that he barely 'new the defendant3 Why, on direct 8nly then should you get into
the witness#s e( ectation of leniency from the rosecutor. %he .ury will be left with the im ression that this witness is so selfish, and so des icable, that he is willing to deny his friend, and to hang his friend out to dry in order to sa$e his own hide. %his is one of oldest stories in the boo'. It is the story of 9eter#s denial of Jesus.
relevant evidence on cross&e(amination. It establishes the witness#s e( ectation of leniency and it is also rele$ant to the witness#s moti$e to testify falsely. If the witness was rewarded in the ast for testimony that im licated another defendant, this certainly ma'es it more li'ely that the witness is moti$ated to gi$e incul atory testimony in the resent case& whether or not the incul atory testimony is true.
%he icture you will aint for the .ury is that these two men do not 'now each %his ma'es it $ery difficult to
e(tra time re aring to deal with a snitch. If you do, you will gi$e your client the o
case decided on the e$idence rather than on the testimony of aid, rofessional witnesses.