By R. SCOTT RAPPOLD<\/p>\n
[Editor’s Note: Prosecutorial Misconduct\/Corruption is rife, but rarely are those responsible held accountable. As in the O.J. Simpson murder trial, they frequently place disingenuous police officers\/detectives on the stand who they KNOW are going to lie under oath. Judges typically ignore the problem. Worse, bribed jailhouse snitches are allowed to testify while a blind eye is turned to the credibility of the informant’s testimony. This has lead, in the worst case \u00a0scenarios, to unjust convictions of murder and death sentences. Only a handful of states have laws restricting or prohibiting such tainted testimony. While prosecutors jubilantly carve notches in their roster of convictions, prisons continue to swell with the innocent as well as the guilty.<\/em>]<\/p>\n There\u2019s an old saying among prosecutors and police: \u201cCrimes committed in hell don\u2019t have angels as witnesses.\u201d Well, meet Ronnie Archuleta. He\u2019s no angel. He\u2019s a five-time convicted felon. He\u2019s been a fugitive. He\u2019s 31 years old and has been arrested or cited 28 times. He\u2019s also been a jailhouse informer \u2014 or \u201csnitch\u201d \u2014 and despite doubts about his record of telling the truth, he\u2019s the kind of person authorities often rely on to convict other criminals.<\/p>\n In late October 1998, Archuleta was almost halfway through a six-month sentence at the El Paso County jail for check fraud. More charges were pending, and prosecutors were considering tagging him a habitual felon, which could mean 10 years or more in prison. Though a police detective called Archuleta a \u201cchronic liar,\u201d authorities ‘believed’ the felon when he said another inmate privately confessed to murder. In 1999, he testified in the trial of Kent LeBere, accused of strangling Linda Richards, whose body was found in her burning van in a Colorado Springs car wash.<\/p>\n By testifying, Archuleta earned early release from jail and probation in another felony case, and he avoided a habitual felon filing. His testimony helped send LeBere to prison for 60 years. But Archuleta now says he lied in court, that LeBere never confessed. He says police told him what to say and showed him their reports. He testified, he says, to get preferential treatment from prosecutors.<\/p>\n It\u2019s the main basis for LeBere\u2019s fight for a new trial. The case provides a rare glimpse into the shadowy world of jailhouse informers. They often lie \u2014 because it can get them out of jail or simply because that\u2019s what they\u2019ve done all their lives. And that has resulted in a string of overturned convictions across the country.<\/p>\n Several states have laws or jury instructions to limit the impact of the testimony of informers, who are widely regarded as the least reliable of witnesses. \u201cPeople who are incarcerated are desperate to get out,\u201d said Guss Guarino, executive director of the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar. \u201cNobody wants to be in jail. Nobody wants to be in prison, and nobody wants to be there a second longer than they have to.\u201d<\/p>\n By the time LeBere and Archuleta had their alleged nighttime jail conversations \u2014 over games of chess played with pieces made from bits of toilet paper \u2014 Archuleta had already made a career out of working with police. He got \u201cconnected with the Police Department\u201d at an early age through neighborhood beat cops and worked for the Colorado Springs Metro, Vice and Narcotics Unit on minor drug buys. He made $100 to $300 a deal and, he said, felt he was doing something positive by taking drug dealers off the street. He testified to helping police on up to 50 cases.<\/p>\n But, Archuleta had his own legal problems, most stemming from bad checks he was passing all over town. He had convictions for fraud, domestic violence, bad checks, harassment, theft, forgery and assault. Yet, until 1998, he’d always gotten probation or community service, when others received lengthy jail terms. Between arrests, he worked as a bail bondsman, and then a truck driver. In jail, court records show, he used his bondsman experience to talk to other inmates, offering to help them set up bail. This was how he got to know LeBere.<\/p>\n According to Archuleta\u2019s own testimony, LeBere was warned, by another inmate when he arrived in jail, that Archuleta was a snitch. But, he said LeBere confessed to him anyway. When Archuleta told a deputy at the jail he had information on LeBere \u2014 not long after his sentence reconsideration was denied \u2014 Colorado Springs police detective J.D. Walker met with him and agreed to help.<\/p>\n Walker went to the prosecutor and \u201ctold her that Ronnie Archuleta was informing on a murder suspect, and I think it was something to the effect of, \u2018Is there anything that we could do for him?\u2019\u201d the detective testified in a 1999 hearing. Prosecutors offered to drop his charge from a fourth-degree felony to a sixth-degree felony, with a sentence of probation if he could pay restitution.<\/p>\n Six months after the trial, Archuleta called Bobby Lane Daniel, one of LeBere\u2019s attorneys, and told him his conscience was bothering him and that he had lied in the trial. \u201cHe would lie on a dime or for a dime,\u201d Daniel said in a recent interview. \u201cThis guy was pretty incredible. He lied to suit his own purpose, whatever his purpose was; and if his purpose changed, he would concoct another story.\u201d<\/p>\n Legal experts say jailhouse informers have a place in the justice system. \u201cThere are times when good law enforcement demands you make deals with unsavory characters to get evidence against even more unsavory characters,\u201d said H. Patrick Furman, a professor at the University of Colorado School of Law. But, he said prosecutors and police must ensure the informer has details that only the killer would know, and must do their utmost to verify the informer is telling the truth. \u201cYou are dealing with people who have flouted the law. They may have a lot to gain if they say the words prosecutors and police want to hear,\u201d he said. Rarely are their motives for coming forward altruistic.<\/p>\n \u201cIn 36 years, I have never had anyone call me because they just felt the need to get something off their chest,\u201d said Bobby Brown, a Colorado Springs bail bondsman and former law enforcement officer. \u201cJailhouse snitches are a dime a dozen, and as a rule I would really question their reliability,\u201d said Brown, who often receives tips from the jail about people who have jumped bail. However, Lou Smit, a retired Colorado Springs police detective, said, \u201cJailhouse informants are used all the time, and they are a good source of information.\u201d \u201cIf it matches the facts in the case and they have no other way of getting it, it can be reliable information,\u201d Smit said.<\/p>\n In Colorado, it\u2019s up to police and prosecutors to make that determination. A jury is not given any special instructions regarding a jailhouse informer\u2019s credibility. Jailhouse conversations usually occur with no other witnesses, so it often comes down to the word of one criminal against that of another. And prosecutors acknowledge that, as witnesses, informers are far from perfect. \u201cThe use of snitches is something I think those of us in law enforcement are increasingly wary of doing,\u201d said 4th Judicial District Attorney John Newsome. Newsome said he is immediately skeptical when someone wants a deal in exchange for information. \u201cYou have to start weighing the cost versus benefit in terms of your case, and you have to start weighing if they are telling the truth,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n When the hammer finally came down on Archuleta, it came down hard. On May 31, 2001, he stood before 4th Judicial District Judge Thomas Kennedy and pleaded for mercy. He\u2019d been picked up in Alabama five months before on three felony warrants for check fraud and theft, plus numerous misdemeanor counts of criminal impersonation, forgery, theft, check fraud and violating bail conditions. Prosecutors were no longer interested in making deals. \u201cHe\u2019s been playing the system for an extremely long time,\u201d prosecutor Krysia Kubiak said at the hearing. \u201cAnd I\u2019m not saying the DA\u2019s office and the Police Department has not been complicit in this abuse of the system, but that\u2019s what it is,\u201d she said. \u201cHe has used his time in prison \u2014 in jail \u2014 and his sentences as a kind of Monopoly game to work off each other to see if he can get a better deal and if he can get out of all the crimes he committed.\u201d<\/p>\n Judge Kennedy told Archuleta, \u201cYou know and I know that you have zero credibility in this building. Anyone that would put you on the stand would have a fool for a lawyer. You have caused nearly a reversal of a murder conviction next door; you have had police officers testify in open court you have no credibility.\u201d Kennedy gave him the maximum, eight years in prison. Archuleta was released this summer after spending most of his prison time in isolation because of his past as an informer.<\/p>\n LeBere\u2019s appeal is pending before Judge Timothy Simmons. The case has attracted the interest of a congressman from LeBere\u2019s native Minnesota, who helped arrange for an international law firm to pursue the appeal for free. David Bergin, the Pueblo prosecutor who tried the case because the 4th Judicial District Attorney\u2019s Office had a conflict of interest over Archuleta, declined to comment on Archuleta. Police have said his testimony was a small part of the case against LeBere, who admitted getting a ride home with the victim the night she died.<\/p>\n In a recent interview, Archuleta said he regrets being an informer and stands by his claim that he lied in the LeBere case to get a deal. \u201cI wanted to take care of my children. I was at the point where I\u2019d do anything to get out of jail,\u201d he said. He recanted, he said, because his conscience was bothering him and he believes LeBere deserves a new trial. Since he has lied so much, Archuleta was asked, why should anyone believe him now? \u201cThere comes a time in a person\u2019s life when you don\u2019t hold their past against them,\u201d he said. \u201cWe all make mistakes, but people do change.\u201d<\/p>\n (CONTACT THE WRITER: 476-1605 or srappold@gazette.com USE OF SNITCHES<\/em>)<\/p>\n No firm numbers exist on the use of jailhouse informants in criminal trials, but experts say it is common, especially in high-stakes cases such as murder trials in which prosecutors are under pressure to get a conviction. A report released last fall by the Northwestern University School of Law Center on Wrongful Convictions found that, of 111 death-row exonerated defendants since capital punishment was resumed in the 1970’s, 51 of the convictions were based at least in part on informants\u2019 testimony.<\/p>\n Offering people deals in exchange for testifying is \u201ctantamount to bribery,\u201d said the center\u2019s executive director, Rob Warden. \u201cAnybody who has been given an incentive to testify, other than wanting to see justice done … This kind of testimony is inherently suspect,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n The center is encouraging states to pass laws requiring electronic recording of any incriminating statements made to informants. No state has done so.<\/strong><\/p>\n RESTRICTIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n In response to problems with the use of jailhouse informants, some lawmakers and courts have increased restrictions on their use by prosecutors: – Illinois: In any capital case in which prosecutors are using a jailhouse snitch, a judge must conduct a pretrial conference to determine if the informant is reliable. – California: Whenever prosecutors have a snitch testify, a judge instructs jurors \u201cthe informant should be viewed with caution and close scrutiny\u201d and to consider how much the testimony may have been influenced by favors or leniency from prosecutors.<\/p>\n Courts in a handful of other states, including Oklahoma, Montana, Mississippi and Louisiana, have adopted similar jury instructions. Courts in Georgia, Ohio, Kentucky, California and Illinois have determined that credibility of a witness \u2014 even an informant \u2014 is up to the jury to decide. The American Bar Association\u2019s ruling body in February recommended that prosecutors carefully limit snitch testimony \u201censuring that no prosecution should occur based solely upon uncorroborated jailhouse informant testimony.\u201d<\/p>\n OTHER CASES<\/strong><\/p>\n 1989: Leslie Vernon White, a longtime jailhouse informant in Los Angeles, admitted lying in a dozen cases. A grand jury later found widespread problems with the use of snitches and complicity by police and prosecutors<\/strong>.<\/p>\n 2001: Prosecutors in Colorado, Florida, South Carolina and Missouri dropped 26 drug cases because an informant who received $2 million in payments over 12 years lied under oath dozens of times.<\/p>\n 2004: A state court in California threw out the murder conviction of Thomas Goldstein because of an unreliable jailhouse snitch, 24 years after he testified.<\/p>\n 2005: A California man serving a murder sentence was granted a new trial when the jailhouse informant who testified against him was found by a judge to lack credibility.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" By R. SCOTT RAPPOLD [Editor’s Note: Prosecutorial Misconduct\/Corruption is rife, but rarely are those responsible held accountable. As in the O.J. Simpson murder trial, they frequently place disingenuous police officers\/detectives on the stand who they KNOW are going to lie … Continue reading