Democratic and Republican representatives are up in arms in introducing a bill that will require judges to weigh the credibility of an informant's testimony. The bill seeks to screen the informant before his testimony can be presented before a jury.
The senators are seeking to regulate the assessment of the testimonies given by "incentivized" informants. Under the bill, the judge will have to consider their criminal history, if they've previously testified in criminal cases and examine whether an independent evidence corroborates their testimony.
The bill is considered as part of a broader examination on how witnesses are used to promulgate decisions in cases. In a trial by jury, selected jurors will make decisions or findings of fact in a case which will then direct the actions of a judge.
"Without question, informant testimony is useful for law enforcement, and maybe sometimes it's the only evidence in a serious case," policy director of the Innocence Project Northwest Lara Zarowsky told AP.
In the case of State vs Allen, Allen Donovan, who has been sentenced for his mother's murder was recently exonerated for wrongful conviction. One of the witness in this case is a repeat offender serving sentence for burglary and eight counts of forgery. After the testimony, forgery charges against the informant were dismissed.
The case posed an issue on the incriminating statements given by jailhouse informants. After languishing in prison for 15 years, DNA evidence helped free Donovan from a lifetime verdict.
According to Innocence Project based in New York, incriminating testimony form incentivized informants account for at least 7 wrongful convictions in Washington. In the same data, about 16 percent of 337 convictions were overturned by DNA evidence.
Washington Association of Presecuting Attorneys executive Tom McBride told AP that state courts should direct juries to be stricter when scrutinizing an informants' testimony. Likewise, he believes that juries should be informed of the deals given to the informants.
