In 1997, Sonya Singleton was convicted of cocaine trafficking and money laundering. A cooperating co-defendant testified against her at trial. In exchange for his testimony, the government promised that they would not prosecute him for “other offenses” and would bring his cooperation to the attention of the sentencing judge. It’s called a 5K1.1, Substantial Assistance.
Ms. Singleton was sentenced to 46 months in federal prison. Her co-defendant’s sentence was reduced from 15 years to 5 years, to run concurrent with another state charge he was facing.
Singleton moved to block her co-defendant’s testimony because it violated the federal bribery statute, which prohibits giving “anything of value to any person, for or because of the testimony” to be given by that person. The pertinent part of 18 U.S.C. Section 201(c)(2) specifically states;
(c) Whoever -- …
(2) directly or indirectly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any person, for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon trial…before any court…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.
A panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the conviction on the grounds that the prosecuting attorney violated the statute when he offered leniency to a co-defendant in exchange for testimony.
The 10th Circuit Court, sitting en banc, later vacated the panel decision and held that 18 U.S.C. 201(c)(2) “does not apply to the United States or an Assistant United States Attorney functioning within the official scope of office.” The government’s argument is that, as it is acting in its sovereign authority to prosecute, it is the United States, and the United States is an inanimate entity, not a being. Therefore, the word “whoever” does not apply to the government.
The Supreme Court refused to hear Singleton, even though it would apply to almost every federal case. The use of testimony purchased by the government is the prevalent “tool” employed by federal prosecutors.
A 2004 study by the Northwestern University Law School’s Center on Wrongful Convictions reveals that 46% of wrongful death penalty convictions are due to “snitch” misinformation, making snitches the leading cause of wrongful convictions in capital cases. Tens of thousands of federal inmates are convicted and their sentences enhanced based solely on the purchased testimony of a cooperating co-defendant “eager to please the government.” Threatening defendants with incredibly enhanced prison sentences and then dangling leniency in front of them creates a tremendous incentive to fabricate and/or lie to save themselves.
The government’s policy of purchasing testimony (besides being morally bankrupt) places them above the law and the Constitutionality of this practice should be addressed by the Supreme Court immediately. This single issue would impact American jurisprudence more than any other topic, and is worthy of Supreme Court consideration. I urge you to contact the Supreme Court directly at www.supremecourtus.gov and share your own feelings regarding this important issue.
STEPHANIE LANDA IN FEDERAL PRISON
--Stephanie Landa
Be first to comment this article
Only registered users can write comments. Please login or register.
Be first to comment this article
