How DEA Defense Lawyers Challenge Confidential Informant Testimony

How DEA Defense Lawyers Challenge Confidential Informant Testimony

When the government uses a confidential informant (CI) to make a case against someone for a drug crime, the credibility of that CI often becomes a major issue in the defense. After all, CIs are typically criminals themselves who are working off charges or for money, so their motives are questionable from the start. As a DEA defense lawyer, one of our key jobs is to vigorously challenge the CI’s testimony to undermine their credibility and create reasonable doubt about our client’s guilt.

There are several common methods we use to attack the credibility of a CI:

Expose Motives and Bias

First, we dig into the CI’s background, criminal history, and deal they got from the DEA to reveal possible motives and bias. For example, if a CI is facing 10 years in prison but will get probation in exchange for successful testimony against our client, we make sure the jury understands the powerful incentive to fabricate testimony. Or if a CI is being paid thousands of dollars for their work, we show they have a financial motive to lie. As the Supreme Court has recognized, “[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.”

Show Prior Inconsistent Statements

Often, CIs will change elements of their story from one telling to the next. As DEA defense attorneys, we scour their previous written and verbal statements to law enforcement for any little inconsistencies with their trial testimony. If their story has shifted over time – like the quantity of drugs they claim to have purchased from our client – it undercuts their credibility. As one court put it, “a jury could reasonably conclude that [the CI] adjusted his statements to law enforcement authorities to suit his needs and purposes at the time.”

Reveal Perjury in Other Cases

If we can demonstrate a pattern of perjury or lying by the CI in other cases, juries will be much less likely to believe them this time around. By researching the CI’s history thoroughly, we often find other cases where judges have made specific findings that the CI lied under oath or other evidence their testimony was false. Pointing out these prior incidents of deception can be extremely damaging to the CI’s credibility with the jury.

Highlight Substance Abuse

Given that CIs are typically drawn from the criminal underworld, many have long histories of drug and alcohol abuse. We put their substance abuse issues front and center to argue it has impacted their ability to accurately perceive and recall events. When a CI admits to using drugs during the time they claim to have purchased from our client or seems confused about dates and details, it bolsters our argument that their testimony is completely unreliable.

Attack Police Practices

In some cases, we put the DEA itself on trial by attacking their practices in running CIs and handling evidence. For example, if officers failed to properly search their CI before and after alleged “controlled buys” from our client, we argue evidence may have been planted. Or if the DEA paid their CI exorbitant sums despite a track record of lying, we argue the agency had no interest in the truth. As the Supreme Court has noted, while the government “must use all lawful guilefulness to ferret out criminals…, they may not be rewarded for false statements and then use such falsehoods to bolster their case using even more falsehoods.”

In the end, our goal as DEA defense lawyers is to tell the jury: “You can’t believe a word this CI says – and if you can’t believe the main witness, you can’t convict our client.” By skillfully attacking the CI’s credibility from all angles, we give juries ample reason to doubt the government’s entire case.