How DEA Attorneys Challenge Confidential Informant Testimony in Drug Cases

How DEA Attorneys Challenge Confidential Informant Testimony in Drug Cases

Confidential informants (CIs) are often key witnesses for the government in federal drug cases brought by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). However, relying too heavily on CI testimony can be risky and open the door for defense attorneys to attack the credibility of the witness. In this article, we’ll explore common methods DEA attorneys use to challenge CI testimony and undermine these witnesses in court.

Vetting the Confidential Informant

A common defense strategy is to scrutinize the vetting process used to approve a CI. Attorneys will probe into the CI’s background, criminal history, and motivation for cooperating to reveal any red flags. For example, if a CI has an extensive criminal past involving crimes of deception, this could raise doubts about their honesty when testifying.

Defense lawyers may also challenge payments or other incentives offered to the CI in exchange for their cooperation. Excessive or improper promises of reward could imply the CI is fabricating testimony to please prosecutors and collect a payout.

Questioning the Basis of Knowledge

Another approach is questioning how a CI obtained seemingly inside information about the defendant’s activities. This aims to pick apart the CI’s purported “basis of knowledge” and cast doubt on whether they truly learned what they claim from the defendant versus through other means.

For example, if a CI offers very specific testimony about locations where a defendant stored drugs or conducted deals, the defense may probe into whether this level of detail reasonably could have come from the defendant versus being fabricated or pieced together by investigators. Poking holes in the CI’s basis of knowledge makes their account less believable.

Prior Inconsistent Statements

By comparing the CI’s courtroom testimony to any previous statements given to investigators, defense lawyers can highlight discrepancies to damage credibility. Even subtle differences risk making a CI appear unreliable or motivated to bend the truth.

For example, if a CI previously stated in an interview that a drug transaction occurred on a Tuesday but now testifies it occurred on a Thursday, this inconsistency could raise suspicion. The defense will emphasize that both versions cannot be true, creating uncertainty around the CI’s accuracy.

Alleging Undue Influence

In some cases, defense counsel may allege investigators improperly influenced a CI’s account, intentionally or not, through questioning tactics or suggestions. If evidence exists of leading questions, heavy coaching, or shared case materials, the reliability of testimony allegedly “parroting” the prosecution’s theory comes under fire.

Even well-intentioned investigators explaining evidentiary goals or “refreshing recollections” could sway a CI toward embellished or aligned testimony. Such influence critically undercuts truthfulness, lending credence to accusations of “puppet witness” fabrication.

Attacking Corroborating Evidence

Typically CI testimony does not stand alone but is paired with corroborating evidence like recorded conversations, seized contraband, or investigator surveillance. Skillful defense lawyers will pick apart these supplementary exhibits to undermine their reinforcement of the CI account.

For example, ambiguous language in transcripts could counter claims that illegal agreements were explicitly made. Or chain-of-custody gaps around contraband may fuel speculation of tampering. Often merely raising the specter of questionable evidence handling impacts the CI’s credibility. Even if corroboration remains legally admissible, its weakened reliability drags down belief in linked testimony.

Leveraging Character Witnesses

Another gambit is calling character witnesses who can vouch for a defendant’s law-abiding history and truthfulness, contrasted against a CI’s shady past. This maneuvers to portray the defendant as more honest than the CI, flipping credibility on its head.

While subject to certain limits, defense attorneys adeptly use character witnesses to color defendants as pillars of community decency while reminding juries that CIs are essentially paid witnesses with criminal incentives to fabricate testimony. This characterization aims to tip the scales toward reasonable doubt.

Requesting Cautionary Jury Instructions

Should efforts to wholly exclude a CI’s testimony fail, defense lawyers will request the court instruct juries to weigh such testimony with great caution. Pattern jury instructions note factors like criminal incentives and custody pressures that may consciously or unconsciously tempt even well-intentioned witnesses toward false testimony.

Cautioning the jury against putting undue weight on testimony from compensated witnesses with penal interests blunts the prosecution’s ability to rely too heavily on a CI’s account at trial. This safety net limits damage if the court declines to fully bar troublesome elements of a CI’s narrative.

Takeaways

DEA attorneys face steep challenges fighting to admit CI testimony critical to federal drug cases. While CIs undoubtedly remain important investigative assets, prosecutors must meticulously vet and carefully shape such testimony understanding the many angles from which defense lawyers will attack credibility.

Rather than viewing CI testimony as an easy hole-in-one, government attorneys should see it as merely one club in the bag. Building a case that does not lean too heavily on any single witness or class of evidence remains the soundest strategy. Integrating CI accounts with reliable corroboration, and anticipating vulnerabilities, helps prosecutors parry credibility blows.

With sharp defense lawyers ready to spotlight every inconsistency in CI narratives, prosecutors must fastidiously prepare these witnesses for rigid cross-examination. Never forgetting the questionable incentives and influences at play builds necessary caution into using CI testimony while denying opponents exploitable weaknesses. Ultimately overreliance on CIs invites losing cases to shredding credibility attacks.