Now, if my clients were subsequently to become prosecution witnesses  against some other defendant, that defendant would be entitled to discovery disclosure of agreements, benefits received or promised and prior relevant statements by my client but the disclosure might be made under a protective order prohibiting the defendant from disclosing to anyone else or using the information for any purpose beyond defense in that case.

  I agree with the second paragraph in that they are not often worried about the defense lawyers. (this memo is obviously a response to that particular website) but I do think judges are sometimes worried about defendants disclosing information.

  Sentencing memoranda  or memoranda in support of 35 (b) motions are, in my general experience anyway, a lot more potentially damning than the plea agreements common here.

I've always felt that freedom is more valuable than money. Yet prosecutors can trade freedom for testimony and the defense can't.

the mere fear of being exposed isn't sufficient. presumably, that was taken into account when the deal was cut. i don't think divorce records have any business being sealed. again, my tax dollars paid for the courthouse and the judge.

  How many people would prefer it if  the  use of the "snitches" who helped bring down Nixon was illegal?

   We live in a world where crime exists. Certainly, "snitching" creates both personal and institutional moral dilemmas. Unquestionably, many abuses exist in the criminal justice system. At its worst, we sometimes see situations where law-enforcement essentially becomes a co-conspirator providing tacit "protection" to one  bad guy to get another one.

   Recognizing these very real problems should not lead to the conclusion that therefore no one involved in criminal activity can be a competent witness in a criminal trial.

of course, i didn't suggest outlawing plea bargains, which is pretty much what snitching is, merely pointing out that they should all be a matter of public record.

 Most of us would define "snitching"  roughly as disclosing inculpatory evidence about a third person or cooperating with law enforcement to gather evidence about that third person in the hopes of receiving a benefit or currying favor within the system. Some might define it even more broadly to include telling on someone for no anticipated benefit from the system.

   Would you oppose the use of a "snitch" if your child was raped and murdered and one of the culprits agreed to testify against the other culprit in exchange for a reduced sentence? Is your moral sense that it would be better to allow the other to escape accountability rather than use "tainted" testimony?  i doubt that form of snitching would be opposed by very many.

   The use of confidential informants in buy-bust stings is certainly more problematic but it is just one aspect of snitching.  

   Moreover, would you have a differne  view of a snitch wearing a wire to record a drug deal than you would of one wearing a wire to record a powerful politician taking a bribe to steer a contract to Halliburton?

Would you oppose the use of a "snitch" if your child was raped and murdered and one

Neither of decon's posts have had much connect with the actual topic, or even reality.

  Whether records should always be available to the general public is one issue. whether the use of testimony from snitches-- or more generally others with a stake in outcomes is another.

  First, the no snitch testimony law would be bad law. Anyone with knowledge of events and the mental competency to testify should be permitted to testify. Facts pertaining to their bias and credibility certainly should be disclosed to the defendant and the subject of vigorous cross-examination. Juries are cautioned about the need to carefully scrutinize informant and accomplice testimony and they should be very skeprical but they should not be prohibited from hearing relevant evidence.

  As for public disclosure, obviiously the judicial conference is worried that public disclosure in some cases mmay instigate the commission of violent crimes which would seem to be a valid concern.

  Interestingly, in a somewhat analogous circumstance people here seem to come down exactly on the opposite side. When the subject is registration of convicted sex offenders and the publication of their identity and location people here express concern for their privacy and the potential for them to be harmed. I'd agree that those are valid concerns but find it quite revealing that we see more concern for convicted sex offenders than for snitches.

  I'm not about to champion the virtue of snitches as a class, but the expressions of outrage over revealing their identity and location coupled with the demand for the revelation of the identity and location od snitches seems, shall we say, peculiar.

  Other than an unthinking reaction that law enforcement is always wrong so we don't need to think, I fail to see how these positions are reconciled.

but sometimes the level of stupidity demands note, Sailr.

Most of the rest of us offered our opinion on the topic of the post while you make personal attacks and regurgitate strawmen.