Guidelines on Jailhouse Informants Are Issued

Alarmed by the possibility that jailhouse informants may have perjured themselves about other inmates’ confessions, the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office issued strong new guidelines Thursday barring the use of such informants--unless their testimony is supported by “concrete evidence.”

Senior prosecutors cited only two examples of evidence weighty enough to justify allowing a jailhouse informant to testify: his having obtained a tape-recording of the other inmate confessing, or a document in the inmate’s handwriting admitting guilt.

“This office will no longer call as a witness a jailhouse informant to testify to a defendant’s oral statement, admission or confession without concrete evidence of the truthfulness of the informant,” said a directive sent to the 800 lawyers in the district attorney’s office by Chief Deputy Dist. Atty. Gregory Thompson.

Judicial Review

In addition, the directive said the district attorney’s office will encourage defense attorneys to seek judicial review of convictions in some cases.

These actions--which are expected to significantly reduce the already small number of cases in which informants testify--came in response to disclosures last month that a longtime informant could gather enough information about a murder case to implicate a defendant he had never met.

That informant, Leslie Vernon White, demonstrated for Sheriff’s Department deputies that he could gather the information from a jail telephone by persuading law enforcement authorities over the phone that he was a prosecutor and, at other times, a police officer. White said he had never done this before, but had seen others do it.

His demonstration prompted the district attorney’s office to begin a review of every prosecution in the last 10 years in which the testimony of a jailhouse informant helped convict another inmate. Jailhouse informants typically testify in return for reduced sentences.

Credibility Assessed

Richard Hecht, who, as director of the district attorney’s branch operations, is heading that review, said Thursday that he had asked all past and current prosecutors to write him about their experiences with White and other jailhouse informants.

He said that, so far, prosecutors have assessed the credibility of 121 informants who have testified in 107 cases over the last 10 years. According to information he described as incomplete, Hecht also said he had learned that White testified for the prosecution at two trials and at five pretrial hearings.

In addition, Hecht said, defense attorneys have notified the district attorney’s office of six cases in which informants figured.

Hecht said that none of the cases he has personally reviewed struck him as having resulted in a wrongful conviction.

However, in apparent response to criticism from defense attorneys that the district attorney’s office is in effect investigating itself, Hecht said he will pass the assessments of individual prosecutors on to defense attorneys.

“The (defense) attorney will be advised of the information we have received from the trial deputy and encouraged, where appropriate, to make a motion to bring the matter before the court,” perhaps in the form of a motion for a new trial, Hecht said. He offered no specifics.

Endorsement Required

Hecht said that Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl F. Gates and Sheriff Sherman Block were apprised of the new directive Thursday and “are supportive of our policy.”

The new policy also requires the unanimous endorsement of three of the district attorney’s highest-ranking prosecutors--Hecht and the directors of the district attorney’s central operations and special prosecutions units--before an informant can be used as a witness.

The new policy replaces an amorphous one, which left the decision to use an informant up to each individual prosecutor, with no clear guidelines.