D.A. Acts to Preserve Data Involving Jail Informants

The Los Angeles County district attorney’s office Wednesday began preparing for a possible series of legal challenges to its use of jailhouse informants by asking its prosecutors and other law enforcement agents to preserve all paper work on informants.

In a special directive to the office’s 800 lawyers, Chief Deputy Dist. Atty. Gregory Thompson said, “It is important that you . . . keep . . . such documents since they may be the subject of discovery at a later date.”

Discovery is the process by which defense attorneys learn of the evidence law enforcement authorities have gathered in a criminal case. Prosecutors are legally obligated to turn over such evidence, often in the form of police reports, so that defense attorneys can prepare their own cases.

Thompson said that “probably the most significant area” for defense challenges will involve assertions by defense attorneys that they were not given full discovery about informants who testified against their clients.

To Encourage Review

The district attorney’s office, which is conducting a review of all cases involving jailhouse informants over the last decade, announced last week that it would encourage defense attorneys to seek judicial review of convictions in some cases.

The district attorney’s office has so far identified 107 cases in which jailhouse informants have testified.

On Wednesday, officials disclosed the text of letters that will be sent to defense attorneys in each of those cases.

The letters state:

“Recently we have been made aware of the demonstrated ability of Leslie White, an inmate in the Los Angeles County Jail, to deceive employees of the Los Angeles County coroner’s office, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and the district attorney’s office, and telephonically obtain criminal case information as a result of falsely representing his identity.

“Leslie White indicated that although he had never used this technique to manufacture a confession against a defendant, he claims that other jailhouse informants, whom he refused to name, had used this technique.

“After having discovered the existence of this problem, the district attorney immediately formed an office-wide task force to investigate. . . .

“At this point, we have no knowledge that (the) jailhouse informant who testified in your client’s case acquired information in a manner alluded to by Mr. White. However, since the courtroom is the appropriate forum in which to fully explore this issue, our office will join with you in expediting the hearing of any appropriate motion you may wish to bring.”

Possible Problems

Defense attorneys who handled cases in which White figured as a prosecution witness will receive letters that call attention to possible discovery problems.

The letters state that the district attorney’s office learned in its current investigation that “at the time Mr. White testified as a prosecution witness . . . information existed that you may not have been aware of, which might adversely reflect upon Mr. White’s credibility. As a result, you may not have been able to thoroughly develop evidence which might have been used to impeach the testimony of Mr. White.”

Asked for examples of such information, Thompson cited the number of cases White has been involved in, accounts of White’s flip-flops as a witness, and information that White’s name may have appeared on various lists of undesirable informants.