Can You Prosecute the Informant Who Had You Charged With a Crime

Quote:

---

Quoting Welfarelvr

---

I think the others are making light of prosecutorial misconduct. With almost unfettered discretion and little checks or balance to prosecutors who go rogue, it is a real problem in this country that is getting worse and worse. What other constitutional rights must be thrown asunder in the vital search for willie waggers?

---

First, there is a considerable lack of detail in the OP's statement.

Second, he pled guilty! THIS will be an almost insurmountable barrier for him to overcome in an appeal!

Third, I get the distinct impression this occurred some time ago so the time to even think of an appeal MAY have passed.

Fourth, I suspect there is much more to this story and that catching a weenie wagger was not the goal here, though it may have been the only charge they could leverage in the situation. No one regularly employs CIs to try and catch guys flashing in the park. It doesn't happen. CIs are most often used in drug cases. So, I suspect true circumstances are much different than the OP has made them out to be.

Quote:

---

Quoting Welfarelvr

---

I think the others are making light of prosecutorial misconduct. With almost unfettered discretion and little checks or balance to prosecutors who go rogue, it is a real problem in this country that is getting worse and worse.

---

Without questioning the existence of abuse of confidential informants, both by putting them in danger and in obtaining probable cause to obtain warrants, the OP has not shared with us any facts that would suggest that the police or confidential informant did anything wrong in his situation. He seems to be alleging that, had the informant not been confidential, he might have been able to attack the person's credibility, but unless the charge can be sustained without the confidential informant's testimony there would be nothing confidential about the person's identity. Witnesses get identified to the defense.

Quote:

---

Quoting Welfarelvr

---

What other constitutional rights must be thrown asunder in the vital search for willie waggers?

---

What constitutional rights were "thrown asunder" in this case?

Quote:

---

Quoting Welfarelvr

---

However, note the part about little checks or balance. If the OP properly appealed, the options available would be....

---

In Texas, plea bargains usually include the defendant's agreeing to waive any appeal. If that occurred with the defendant's plea, he will have to get the trial court to certify that he has a right to appeal, and that's going to be tough if his grounds for appeal will be, "I regret confessing to the crime on the record, because I now think I could have successfully challenged the credibility of the police informant." Even if there is no impediment to an appeal, and the time frame for appeal has not expired, it's difficult to see how that argument would get him the time of day from an appellate court.

Quote:

---

Quoting Welfarelvr

---

So, the best the OP could legally hope for is to be tried with the knowledge the witness against him had a criminal record.

---

Except a confidential informant is not a witness. A huge percentage of C.I.'s have criminal records, yet they may still be reliable in the information they share with the police.

All of that said, it doesn't sound like this case involved confidential informants at all. It sounds like we're talking about a witness who used an alias, with the defendant claiming that had he been aware of the witness's real name he would have been able to try to impeach her with her criminal history at trial instead of choosing to plead guilty.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

What constitutional rights were "thrown asunder" in this case?

---

6th amendment rights under the confrontation clause. I believe due process demands witnesses against a person need to be identified before trial so the defendant can be prepared. While the OP is using the term confidential informant, it seems clear the guy was a witness and the DA did not turn over the identity. While I could be wrong, I think it is unlikely the police used a CI to gather information regarding the OP taking selfies while willie wagging and where he stored those selfies. I suspect the CI went into the bathroom, saw some wagging, exited and gave the sign to officers who moved in to arrest.

OP, is that what happened? Or, was the CI used to get a warrant that gathered evidence against you?

Quote:

---

In Texas, plea bargains usually include the defendant's agreeing to waive any appeal. If that occurred with the defendant's plea, he will have to get the trial court to certify that he has a right to appeal, and that's going to be tough if his grounds for appeal will be, "I regret confessing to the crime on the record, because I now think I could have successfully challenged the credibility of the police informant." Even if there is no impediment to an appeal, and the time frame for appeal has not expired, it's difficult to see how that argument would get him the time of day from an appellate court.

---

I agree the system does not deal with the problem of prosecutorial misconduct for a number of reasons.

Quote:

---

Except a confidential informant is not a witness. A huge percentage of C.I.'s have criminal records, yet they may still be reliable in the information they share with the police.

All of that said, it doesn't sound like this case involved confidential informants at all. It sounds like we're talking about a witness who used an alias, with the defendant claiming that had he been aware of the witness's real name he would have been able to try to impeach her with her criminal history at trial instead of choosing to plead guilty.

---

I agree. I do not think it would have worked, but, he has the right to consider the issue and have the information turned over to him. (If a danger, perhaps turned over to his attorney.) Especially when it is likely it was the ONLY witness against him.

Editing of above--My thoughts on the sixth might not be decided as yet and may not apply as jurisprudence seems to save that for hearsay. I adjust my answer above to focus more on Due Process:

PENNSYLVANIA v. RITCHIE, 480 U.S. 39 (1987)

Quote:

---

This Court has never squarely held that the Compulsory Process Clause guarantees the right to discover the identity of witnesses, or to require the government to produce exculpatory evidence. But cf. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 709 , 711 (1974) (suggesting that the Clause may require the production of evidence). Instead, the Court traditionally has evaluated claims such as those raised by Ritchie under the broader protections of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985); Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). See also Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470 (1973). Because the applicability of the Sixth Amendment to this type of case is unsettled, and because our Fourteenth Amendment precedents addressing the fundamental fairness of trials establish a clear framework for review, we adopt a due process analysis for purposes of this case. Although we conclude that compulsory process provides no greater protections in this area than those afforded by due process, we need not decide today whether and how the guarantees of the Compulsory Process Clause differ from those of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is enough to conclude that on these facts, Ritchie's claims more properly are considered by reference to due process. [480 U.S. 39, 57]
It is well settled that the government has the obligation to turn over evidence in its possession that is both favorable to the accused and material to guilt or punishment. United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976); Brady v. Maryland, supra, at 87. Although courts have used different terminologies to define "materiality," a majority of this Court has agreed, "[e]vidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A `reasonable probability' is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S., at 682 (opinion of BLACKMUN, J.); see id., at 685 (opinion of WHITE, J.).

---

Quote:

---

I suspect the CI went into the bathroom, saw some wagging, exited and gave the sign to officers who moved in to arrest.

---

How do you get from "in a park" to "in the bathroom"?

Dude, stop. Seriously.

welfarelvr - best answer so far....First, what I want most is for the truth to come out. Then let the chips fall where they may, and I'll move on. I suspect that if the public knew that police target random people, manufacturing pretend crime scenarios, using criminals pretending to be victims, so as to sweep in like heroes and meet arrest quotas, that would be unacceptable. This is like a fireman starting a fire, so as to have something to put out. By the time the TV cameras get there, all they see are heroes putting out a fire. If it's too late to change anything with my care, so be it. It's public knowledge of the truth that I seek. I have one lawyer attempting to reopen the case, with all the evidence on the table. In Dallas, a woman recently won $1.2 million for a false arrest where she spent nine days in jail. I did 35. I actually did over 60 percent of the maximum sentence. That is likely one reason that the powers that be here do not want the truth to come to light. Michael Morton did 25 years for something he didn't do. When the public became aware of the suppressed evidence, he was freed and a judge was disbarred. Remember the Duke Lacrosse players? At first they were vilified, suspended, disbanded, and jailed. Eventually, when the truth came out, a D.A. was disbarred. For the record, I plead no contest, after 14 months I was worn out. So much for a speedy and public trail as guaranteed by the constitution. Also, they had drug dogs with them, and a child. At one point the D.A. threatened me with felony indecency with a child. Having a child in a drug sting would also be a no-no they wouldn't want anyone to know about. It was probably a drug sting, with IE as a back up plan. On the day of my arrest, the alleged victim had an open theft case in the very same county court room no. 3, in front of the very same judge. At her second court appearance after my arrest, she got deferred. They knew who she was and that she was not credible. They hid that. And you gotta know, it isn't the first time. If the truth comes out, I will be satisfied.

Quote:

---

Quoting LawResearcherMissy

---

How do you get from "in a park" to "in the bathroom"?

Dude, stop. Seriously.

---

Chick, stop. Seriously. This is a legal discussion. We need to have some facts. What do you think happened? Do you think the DA used a CI or a witness to get evidence against the OP?

If they have video, police observance or something else of the act, the credibility of the CI/witness is irrelevant. In the bathroom, behind the tree, under the bleacher, on the hill or wherever the act occurred is not important. I know of some stings where bathrooms (in the park or on the beach) become known places where mens do, things, for other mens and the police send in someone that appears to not be opposed to such things to see if anyone will solicit them so I used that as an example. I am sorry such speculation so offends.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

welfarelvr - best answer so far....First, what I want most is for the truth to come out. Then let the chips fall where they may, and I'll move on.

---

What "truth"? That the police do stings?

Quote:

---

I suspect that if the public knew that police target random people, manufacturing pretend crime scenarios, using criminals pretending to be victims, so as to sweep in like heroes and meet arrest quotas, that would be unacceptable. This is like a fireman starting a fire, so as to have something to put out. By the time the TV cameras get there, all they see are heroes putting out a fire.

---

No it is not. That would be called entrapment and your attorney would have been all over that. You were predisposed to do whatever you did. They could do most anything, any trick they liked and I would not expose my naughty bits to a stranger. I personally do not think the police did anything wrong from your description. It is the prosecutor I think crossed the line.

Quote:

---

If it's too late to change anything with my care, so be it. It's public knowledge of the truth that I seek. I have one lawyer attempting to reopen the case, with all the evidence on the table. In Dallas, a woman recently won $1.2 million for a false arrest where she spent nine days in jail. I did 35. I actually did over 60 percent of the maximum sentence.

---

You were not falsely arrested. The police had probable cause to arrest you with the statement of the witness.

Quote:

---

That is likely one reason that the powers that be here do not want the truth to come to light. Michael Morton did 25 years for something he didn't do.

---

As I said, no one will care. You did not do 25 years.

Quote:

---

When the public became aware of the suppressed evidence, he was freed and a judge was disbarred. Remember the Duke Lacrosse players? At first they were vilified, suspended, disbanded, and jailed. Eventually, when the truth came out, a D.A. was disbarred.

---

Or, Senator Stevens. There, there was active concealment of relationships and exculpatory evidence that caused a popular senator to lose an election as he was convicted just before election day. Do you see that a lot in the news? None of that happened here.

Quote:

---

For the record, I plead no contest, after 14 months I was worn out. So much for a speedy and public trail as guaranteed by the constitution.

---

Spare me. I suspect it was you who did not seek a speedy and public trial. What was the delay?

Quote:

---

Also, they had drug dogs with them, and a child. At one point the D.A. threatened me with felony indecency with a child. Having a child in a drug sting would also be a no-no they wouldn't want anyone to know about. It was probably a drug sting, with IE as a back up plan.

---

That is an interesting plan. How those two get together is interesting. More likely they suspected drug users were more likely to fall for the sting situation.

Quote:

---

On the day of my arrest, the alleged victim had an open theft case in the very same county court room no. 3, in front of the very same judge. At her second court appearance after my arrest, she got deferred. They knew who she was and that she was not credible. They hid that. And you gotta know, it isn't the first time. If the truth comes out, I will be satisfied.

---

The truth is out. I believe you that the guy was not credible. I also believe what he said to the police was true. It is just I think everyone deserves certain rights and that some of yours were violated. That does not mean you are not guilty, it just means I think the other side must be beyond reproach or our trust in the law disappears.

Quote:

---

Quoting Welfarelvr

---

6th amendment rights under the confrontation clause. I believe due process demands witnesses against a person need to be identified before trial so the defendant can be prepared.

---

Again, a confidential informant is not a witness. A confidential informatn provides information to the police that may be useful in a police investigation or to obtain a warrant, but they don't testify. If somebody is on the witness list, they're not a confidential informant in that case, even if we assume that they have worked as a confidential informant on a different case.

Quote:

---

Quoting Welfarelvr

---

While the OP is using the term confidential informant, it seems clear the guy was a witness and the DA did not turn over the identity.

---

While I disagree as to what seems "obvious" given how little information the OP has shared, you are now accepting my inference from the end of my last post.

Quote:

---

Quoting Welfarelvr

---

I agree. I do not think it would have worked, but, he has the right to consider the issue and have the information turned over to him. (If a danger, perhaps turned over to his attorney.) Especially when it is likely it was the ONLY witness against him.

---

There apparently were two witnesses, one of whom supposedly was not going to testify. The OP has shared absolutely nothing that would support his thesis that the two witnesses did anything other than happen to be present in his vicinity, then later report to the police the actions they saw him take on the date in question. He has not provided any evidence that they were working with the police at or prior to that time, that his prosecution had anything to do with a conspiracy, or that the reason the witness's alias was used in the police report was because that was the name she used when she reported his alleged actions to the police.

Quote:

---

Quoting Welfarelvr

---

Editing of above--My thoughts on the sixth might not be decided as yet and may not apply as jurisprudence seems to save that for hearsay. I adjust my answer above to focus more on Due Process:

---

The Sixth Amendment issue becomes moot when you choose not to go to trial, choose to raise your right hand and be sworn in, then choose to confess to a crime on the record as part of a plea bargain.

The OP has not indicated how he figured out who the witness actually was, or that it was difficult to do so. It may be that her alias is the name she uses in her everyday life.

The OP appears to be male, while the witnesses appear to be female, so if they were in the men's room they would have more 'splainin' do do than the OP.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

I suspect that if the public knew that police target random people, manufacturing pretend crime scenarios, using criminals pretending to be victims, so as to sweep in like heroes and meet arrest quotas, that would be unacceptable.

---

So you have managed to find hundreds of these people who describe exactly the same scenario? Dozens? Or is it just you against the world?

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

I have one lawyer attempting to reopen the case, with all the evidence on the table.

---

Good luck.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

In Dallas, a woman recently won $1.2 million for a false arrest where she spent nine days in jail. I did 35. I actually did over 60 percent of the maximum sentence.

---

And then you confessed. See the difference?

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

Having a child in a drug sting would also be a no-no they wouldn't want anyone to know about. It was probably a drug sting, with IE as a back up plan.

---

No, it was probably two women in a park with their child who saw or thought they saw, for whatever reason, something they didn't want to see.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

On the day of my arrest, the alleged victim had an open theft case in the very same county court room no. 3, in front of the very same judge. At her second court appearance after my arrest, she got deferred.

---

Then (a) you knew who she was, and (b) given that you got a deferral as well, maybe you set her up? Seriously, is that all you have? She got a deferral, just like you?

I am trying to explain things as best I can. I understand it's hard for many to get their minds around the concept that the police can be dirty, or that they might plant evidence, or lie. You are not alone. My main goal now is exposing the corruption, the misconduct, the tort or crime that was committed in a false arrest. But, where to start... the police never did an investigation, In the report, it shows they only talked to the two alleged adult victims. There were about 40 people in the general vicinity, at an outdoor swimming hole. I was waste deep in spring fed water that stays 68 degrees year round. The two said I was masterbating. The water is very very cold. Try this at home. Anyway, one of the other persons present was a friend. He didn't know of my arrest until 35 days later when I finally managed to bond out. The judge refused to pay for him to return from Colorado to testify on my behalf, or even set a firm court date....I have to run...TBC.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

First, there is a considerable lack of detail in the OP's statement.

---

And I, for one, am appreciative of this fact!

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Fourth, I suspect there is much more to this story...

---

Probably not so much as you may imagine...

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

I am trying to explain things as best I can. I understand it's hard for many to get their minds around the concept that the police can be dirty, or that they might plant evidence, or lie.

---

Bad stuff happens. It's just that you have presented no facts to suggest that any such thing happened to you.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

...the police never did an investigation, In the report, it shows they only talked to the two alleged adult victims.

---

That's an investigation.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

There were about 40 people in the general vicinity, at an outdoor swimming hole.

---

Then you and your lawyer would have been in a good position to go to trial, with thirty-eight witnesses asserting that you were innocent.

Quote:

---

Quoting wacojames

---

The judge refused to pay for him to return from Colorado to testify on my behalf, or even set a firm court date....

---

Is that the entire basis of your theory of a conspiracy -- that the judge wouldn't pay your witness's plane fare?