Last Thursday, District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Robert Morin signed an order dismissing charges in one of the city’s most intriguing unsolved murders of the past decades. And once again, the mystery of who killed Washington intern Chandra Levy in 2001 is the number one question facing District investigators and prosecutors.
After the discovery of Levy’s body in Rock Creek Park in 2002, police conducted nearly a decade-long search for an unknown assailant and killer. Early in the course of the investigation, then California congressman Gary Condit came under scrutiny after it was revealed that the Capitol Hill intern had a romantic relationship with Condit. Condit was cleared, and in 2009, police finally made an arrest of another suspect, Ingmar Guandique.
In 2010, Guandique was convicted for Levy’s murder and sentenced to 60 years in prison. At the time of the trial, the strength of the state’s case rested on the testimony of a jailhouse informant and star witness, Armando Morales. During trial, Morales testified that Guandique, his cell-mate, had confessed to the murder. He also stated that he had not received any special consideration for his testimony.
Guandique, who has maintained his innocence, appealed the conviction and was granted a new trial in 2015 after it was revealed that Morales had received witness protection in exchange for testimony. Now, prosecutors have alluded to recently discovered information which precludes them from pursuing a new trial.
The court granted dismissal based on a prosecution motion. While the prosecution has not disclosed the exact nature of the new facts which vindicate Guandique, speculation revolves around a new set of recordings made of conversations with Morales.
In addition to the question of Levy’s killer, the case raises new concerns about the use of jailhouse informants – or ‘snitches’ – to gain convictions. In the past several decades, there has been a growing consensus that testimony for favor or pay cannot, and should not be relied on without certain policy safeguards.
The use of snitch testimony has traditionally been employed by police and prosecutors in a quid pro quo manner. Rarely does a jailhouse informant offer testimony without wanting something in return. They gain reputations, earn rewards, and provide information because they are able to manipulate and request deals – for lenient sentences, reduced charges, and in some cases, cash payments.
Defense attorney Seth Okin commented, “These deals are not always revealed to defenses and juries, and can taint the entire proceedings and due process itself.”
One of the most notorious wrongful conviction cases based on jailhouse informant testimony was the case of the Marietta Seven in Georgia. In the 1970s, seven innocent men were linked together in a double homicide by one woman in custody of Cobb County authorities. She was offered immunity for her jailhouse testimony of the alleged killings and immediately spun a tale that prosecutors bought and sold to jurors. On appeal, lawyers for the accused men showed the woman’s statements varied from one questioning to another and highlighted gaps and inconsistencies in her overall account.
The witness eventually admitted to lying about the Marietta Seven and all charges were dropped. The instant case against Guandique demonstrates a similar and ongoing problem with the reliability of jailhouse informants.\
According to research by the Center on Wrongful Convictions published by the Pew Trust, between 1973 and 2004, jailhouse informant testimony was the leading cause of wrongful convictions in capital cases. False testimony by an informant led to an equally false conviction in almost half of the cases studied where the suspect was eventually exonerated.
Many of the federal circuits have noticed the fundamental errors and miscarriages of justice caused by informant testimony and poorly-exercised prosecutorial judgment. In 2002, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals described in U.S. v. Levenite how compensated testimony creates a fertile field for truth bending. The Fifth Circuit requires that juries be cautioned about testimony when an informant earned money. And in the Ninth Circuit, the reliability on jailhouse informants has been termed unscrupulous. Many states are following suit and reexamining their practices.
While prosecutors in Washington, D.C. will not reveal the specifics of what caused them to drop charges in the Levy murder, one thing may be inferred from their motion: the testimony used to convict Guandique was not reliable. Defense experts around the country are beginning to weigh in on the issue. Some are suggesting that it is time for a complete ban on jailhouse informant testimony – especially where that testimony is compensated for with favors or money.
With each federal, state, and local jurisdiction governing its own practices and policies on informant testimony, however, uniform reform will be difficult. Until the question of reliability comes before the U.S. Supreme Court in the form of a constitutional issue, wrongful convictions will continue. And while innocent men and women sit in prisons across America, informants will continue to walk circles in the revolving door reserved for them at the local jail.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login