Durham Police bonus payments to informants could violate defendants’ rights

[Logical]

A long-standing financial bonus program for criminal informants operated by the Durham Police Department could violate defendants' right to a fair trial and possibly taints their plea agreements.

For 10 years, DPD has offered extra money to undercover informants willing to testify in court and cooperate in drug cases. However, those incentives were offered without the knowledge of prosecutors or defendants. This new revelation could prompt the review of more than two-dozen closed cases. Many of the defendants involved in those cases were imprisoned or scheduled for deportation.

The bonuses were discovered through public records requests made by the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, a Durham-based civil rights nonprofit.

Police payouts to informants are commonly disclosed. But several Durham attorneys say they were unaware of pre-arranged bonuses.

"[T]he D.A.'s office was not aware of any agreement to pay confidential informants at the completion of cases," said Assistant District Attorney Roger Echols in an email last month to Ian Mance, a lawyer for the Southern Coalition for Social Justice. "We were also not aware of, if there were any, payments to confidential informants for bonuses. If we had that information or known it existed we would have provided it to the defendant in discovery."

More at: http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/durham-police-bonus-payments-to-informants-could-violate-defendants-rights/Content?oid=3927386

[JJChambers]

1. Everyone convicted based on informant testimony in these cases should be released and re-tried (nt)

[Logical]

2. LOL, now you are a critic of the police? Amazing. n-t

[JJChambers]

3. Oh, hello again

I didn't realize this was one of your topics. It's a good one! I am not a critic of police. I'm a critic of police misconduct. These people's right to due process was clearly violated.

Keep reading my posts and maybe you'll have a better appreciation of what unbiased and reasonable looks like.

[Logical]

4. I defend the police when they need it. I would say that there are MANY more cases of police.....

getting off for abuse than there are for police getting punished from something they did correctly.

Disagree?

[JJChambers]

5. Huh?

Why would the police be punished for something they did correctly? I agree that there are way too many cases of police misconduct resulting in no corrective action and/or prosecution if warranted. The problem is, even one is way too many.

I also think that the majority of police use of force, including deadly force, is justified. That doesn't mean that it is automatically justified (it clearly isn't), but it does mean that anyone whose default position presumes police use of force is automatically suspect isn't realistic and their opinion is based on the emotional impact of prior exposure to abuses rather than the statistical fact that police often simply have to shoot people and really don't have much choice in the matter.

[busterbrown]

6. Ever since 911..In my opinion...Police have been taking advantage of the constant state of fear that

our country is in.

[Logical]

7. Why would cops not automatically shoot? No down side? Potential up side. n-t

[JJChambers]

8. If you can't think of a downside your thinker ain't workin'

[Logical]

9. Almost no chance of prosecution and you know it. Almost no chance of any punishment. Maybe...

a paid few weeks off at worst.

[JJChambers]

10. ....

We both agree that a percentage of police shootings are not justified and should result in prosecutions. We both think there is a disparity between the percentage of unjustified shootings and the percentage of prosecutions. I think that the number of unjustified shootings is fairly small; you probably think it is larger than I do. We both agree that we need more transparency in the process.

Here's the problem: most police shootings that can be labeled questionable aren't simple cases. Very few are clear cut like the killing of Oscar Grant by BART police officer Johannes Mehserle. No, most police shootings occur in a split second and are part of a rapidly developing situation. The courts recognize that.

Do you remember the case with Andy Lopez? The 14 year old with the replica AK-47 who was recently shot by police? I found this case troubling but ultimately the officers were determined to have been justified and I think that was the appropriate outcome. There were many protests. The FBI conducted their own investigation but came to the same conclusion: the officers were justified.

Again, officer involved shootings are rarely clear cut. Insinuating that officers have nothing to lose by just executing people for no reason isn't going to get us any closer to transparency.

[Live and Learn]

11. When will the police shows stop glorifying the use

of police tactics that should be illegal (e.g., lying to suspects and informants, threatening friends and relatives, beating people, cursing, planting evidence, illegal tracking devices)?

I have no doubt these tactics are actually used but glorifying them on tv shows makes them seem like they are okay. These shows also make it more likely that juries will support the officers since they think it is just typical police work.

These tactics are not okay and they erode the rights of and endanger all citizens.

Gosh, I miss the days of one Adam 12 when the police displayed at least a modicum of respect for those suspected of even the most heinous crimes. The days when a person was considered innocent until proven guilty. And the techniques used to prove them guilty were honest. Maybe I was naive, but that is the way I always thought it was supposed to be.