Should prosecutions that used lying jailhouse snitches be overturned?

Should prosecutors stick to the facts or should they be allowed to encourage and incentivize questionable confession testimony in order to improve their chances of obtaining convictions? 

 

How much circumstantial evidence is enough to show the prosecutor gave a reward or coached a jailhouse snitch's testimony in order to qualify as prosecutor misconduct? After all - shouldn't people be judged by the facts of the case and not by the facts the prosecutor is able to create through crafty psychology and incentivizing the already morally bankrupt ? 

 

YOU BE THE JUDGE: 

 

10 days before a set jury trial, MARC CRICHLOW , a renowned snitch, jailhouse informant, petty criminal and from most people's standards, and otherwise morally bankrupt human being, was placed into the living area with a defendant in a high profile self-defense case that Galveston county prosecutors were set on railroading by any means necessary. 

 

From witness statement to law enforcement, the facts seemed fairly straight forward in this self-defense case. It appeared that the defendant was at a Mardi Gras celebration, when he was attacked by criminal gang members and shot them as an act of self-defense . 

 

The only problem was that most of the evidence seemed to suggest that a young white kid was attacked by a group of criminal gang members prior to the shooting. Therefore in order to overcome a case of self-defense, the prosecutor needed a completely different motive to pull this off. In their case someone to say that it was not self-defense... 

 

In comes Marc Crichlow - a known 'prison snitch'  willing to say anything on trial in order to be released from prison early on his minor felony of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, a charge that was standing in his way from continuing his petty criminal lifestyle that he desperately desired to get back to living.

 

Whether planted, encouraged,or coincidentally, the day of the jury trial and conveniently presented after witness names were due ( this is so no surprise witness can testify and unscrupulous characters such as this can be excluded ) this snitch witness comes forward with what he calls a one on one confession from the defendant.

 

It was only later learned that this this informant had notified the prosecution when "he had it " and " would be willing to help them if they help him " by sending the prosecutors office office a handwritten not the Friday before the Monday trial . 

 

Prosecutors said they never knew anything about this guy and had not promised him anything in return for his testimony of a confession that ironically no one else knew occurred and which specifically included a new motive to consider .... that it was not only self defense but this 19 year old kid specifically told him that he enjoys shooting people but gets an adrenaline rush from doing so. (not sure how many people say,I'm here for self-defense but it really wasn't ) 

 

He even went a step further and informed the jury that this scared youth was " going to get away with it " if he did not come forward with this testimony and he was just doing the right thing . 

 

When asked if he was receiving a deal in exchange for his testimony, the prosecution quickly jumped in before he could speak to let everyone know for him that they were only giving him "protection" from the violent self -defender, who ironically has no prior history of violence of any kind. 

 

So did he receive a deal for his convenient confession testimony? And did the prosecution plant him in the tank, provide him with information to make him sound credible, or simply just give him a deal? 

 

Well, what we do know is that he was reinstated on his probation and released from jail the day after his testimony. Either prosecutors were very pleased with his testimony OR he coincidentally went to court and was released . 

 

Did the testimony that conveniently negated a self - defense motive really matter in this trial ? It is difficult to say, but the prosecution seemed to think it was important when in closing arguments they told the jury this this testimony was the most telling testimony they presented . 

 

Emphasizing that uncorroborated perjury is more important than any other fact is very telling in demonstrating how strong the prosecution really felt there case was. But apparently someone had to pay for the negative attention that was brought to the small town festival ... and rather than criminal gang members and an illegal immigrant ,it needed to be the one who stood up to them . 

 

IMPORTANT TO NOTE: 

                                     In 2009 ,Texas State lawmakers passed a bill to no longer permit prosecutors to use such obvious unreliable testimony from being relied upon in Texas trials. But what happens if such lies occurred prior to 2009 as the incident described above ? ?

 

Well unless prosecutors come forward with what they did or the snitch decides to tell the truth - circumstantial evidence - which I outlined above is only enough to leave you in prison .