holding that an informant, who had a prior history of being an informant, was not a government agent where the informant initiated discussions with the police; the police did not ask for the informant to take any action or to "keep his ears open"; the police did not offer leniency; the police did not know that the witness had previously been an informant; the police told the informant he was not their agent; and the prosecutor testified on the informant's behalf at his trial
How later courts described this case
- holding that an informant, who had a prior history of being an informant, was not a government agent where the informant initiated discussions with the police; the police did not ask for the informant to take any action or to "keep his ears open"; the police did not offer leniency; the police did not know that the witness had previously been an informant; the police told the informant he was not their agent; and the prosecutor testified on the informant's behalf at his trial
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MOSK, J.
I concur in the judgment.
I am much disturbed by the fact that the People considered it desirable to call three jailhouse informants to testify against defendant at his trial. Common experience teaches that such persons “may have good reason to lie . . . .” (United States v. Garcia (5th Cir. 1976) 528 F.2d 580, 588 ; cf. On Lee v. United States (1952) 343 U.S. 747, 757 [ 96 L.Ed. 1270 , 1277, 72 S.Ct. 967 ] [stating that “[t]he use of informers, accessories, accomplices, false friends, or any of the other betrayals which are ‘dirty business’ may raise serious questions of credibility”].) Recent events reveal that they may also have effective means—sometimes supplied by governmental authorities, sometimes not—to make their falsehoods appear rational and persuasive. (See Rep. of the 1989-1990 L. A. County Grand Jury: Investigation of the Involvement of Jail House Informants in the Criminal Justice System in L. A. County.)
In spite of the foregoing, review of the record convinces me that the majority’s disposition is sound. Therefore, I agree with the result.
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied April 24, 1991, and the opinion was modified to read as printed above.