explaining that court-adopted procedure identical to § 29-1929 was intended “to ensure complete disclosure so that counsel will be prepared to cross-examine an informant-witness”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that court-adopted procedure identical to § 29-1929 was intended “to ensure complete disclosure so that counsel will be prepared to cross-examine an informant-witness”
- requiring extensive pretrial disclosure and pretrial hearing on reliability and also permitting instruction that emphasized the need for exceptional care in evaluating jailhouse informant testimony
- adopting special procedures in relation to use of jailhouse informant testimony, including discovery and special jury instruction
- declining to require hearing as intrusive on jury’s function
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CRAIG, M.C., Assigned Judge:
specially concurring.
¶ 1 I concur in the Court’s opinion and write only to comment on my reasons for joining the majority of the Court, as now constituted, in receding from the reliability hearing prescribed in the original opinion in this matter. Dodd v. State, 1999 OK CR 29 , rehearing granted vacating and withdrawing opinion, 70 OBJ 2952 (Oct. 6,1999).
¶ 2 The original opinion established a procedure for and mandated that before a jailhouse informant could be called to testify, the court would make a determination, under prescribed criteria, as to the reliability of the proffered witness and whether such witness should be allowed to testify.
¶ 3 Arguments are made that such procedure will allow the trial court to perform gatekeeping functions, as in he use of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597 , 113 S.Ct. 2786, 2798 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), in ensuring reluctance and reliability of novel scientific expert testimony; or Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 , 110 S.Ct. 3139, 3148 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990), in determining the trustworthiness of testimony of a minor child; or Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 , 84 S.Ct. 1774 , 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964), in allowing the trial court to make a threshold determination of the admissibility of a confession. Compelling reasons prompted each of the provisions for these threshold determinations, which do not extend to the use of a jailhouse informant as a witness, and adequate protection is afforded by the discovery procedure and the use of cautionary jury instructions as mandated in the majority opinion.
¶ 4 Many witnesses, in addition to jailhouse informants, may have a motive to lie. That is not a sufficient reason to remove the trier of fact from making a determination of the credibility of such witness.