From the Home Page:

quote:

---

Jailhouse informants have been implicated in a number of wrongful convictions, including 46% of those reviewed in a study by professors at Northwestern University Law School, the report noted. Critics say it is all too easy for informants to gather information about their fellow inmates' charges and fabricate testimony to persuade prosecutors to offer them leniency on their cases.

Of the 117 death penalty appeals pending in the state public defender's office, 17 featured testimony by in-custody informants and six included testimony by informants out on bail or otherwise in "constructive custody."

Consequently, the commission said "confidence in the reliability of testimony of arrested or charged informant witnesses is a matter of continuing concern to ensure that the administration of justice in California is just, fair and accurate."

---

What does it mean that jail house witnesses were "implicated" in worngful convictions? Of what significance is it to say that 17 of 117 California DP conventions featured inmate testimony?

My mind is open to the possibility that some change in the law is needed, but give me a causal link. How about this: require corroborative evidence for jailhouse witnesses and allow officers to testify to defendant oral admissions after swearing that the suspect had been given the Miranda warnings and waived them?

Extension of the corroboration rule may not be the panacea the proponents hope for:

In Davis v. State, 872 S.W.2d 743, 749 (Tex.Crim.App.1994), the CCA held that "no definitive test exist(s) by which to gauge the existence of corroborating circumstances, and any number of factors could be considered."

Even with corroborative evidence the anti-DP crowd will have ample room to fault such testimony as "insufficient." My experience has been that jurors are sufficeintly skeptical and cautious in evaluationg this type of testimony.

All kinds of witnesses testify with possible bias and/or prejudice who are not incarcerated or facing pending charges. I can think of more than a few times I wished that defense witness testimony required some corroboration when they were trashing my victim with statements or actions that were impossible to disprove.

Certainly one has to hope that the alleged admission to an incaracerated individual is not the only proof of the identity of the perpetrator. I would think almost always there is some other evidence to suggest the stoolie did not just make something up. The problem is as you point out: will the definition of corroborate (or cowaborate) be modified to actually change current results.