Defining the problem
Jailhouse witnesses are incarcerated individuals who offer to testify against an accused person and typically expect leniency in their own cases or other benefits for their cooperation. Such benefits can incentivize these witnesses to provide false information. Unfortunately, this type of testimony is one of the most unreliable forms of evidence in the criminal legal system. With little oversight and strong incentives to lie, it’s contributed to many wrongful convictions, sending innocent people to prison.Â
According to the National Registry of Exonerations, unreliable jailhouse witnesses have played a role in 181 proven wrongful convictions in the United States.
Why is jailhouse informant testimony unreliable?
Incentives to Lie: Informants often exaggerate or fabricate details in exchange for benefits like reduced sentences or improved prison conditions.
Lack of Corroboration: Informant testimony is often not supported by physical evidence or other reliable sources, making it more prone to errors.
Misinterpretation: Informants may misinterpret conversations or take statements out of context, leading to false claims of knowledge they don’t actually have.
Pressure to Cooperate: Informants may feel pressured to give testimony—true or false—because they believe it will help improve their own situation in prison.
Memory Distortion: Over time, informants might unintentionally distort or embellish their memories, further reducing the reliability of their testimony.
Lack of Accountability: Informants are rarely held accountable for false or inaccurate testimony, which means there’s little to prevent manipulation or lies.
Jailhouse witness testimony reform in the Great North region
In Minnesota, the Legislature passed significant reforms in 2021, led by the Great North Innocence Project, to reduce the use of unreliable jailhouse informant testimony. These reforms include:
These reforms aim to improve transparency and accountability in the criminal justice system, helping to prevent wrongful convictions and ensure a fairer process for everyone involved.
Case Examples: Terry Olson and Michael Hansen
Investigators in the cases of both Terry Olson and Michael Hansen, Great North Innocence Project clients, used jailhouse informant evidence to build their case.
In Terry’s case, there was no physical evidence linking Terry to the crime, and prosecutors relied heavily on the coerced confession of a severely mentally ill man, in addition to incentivized informants, to build a case against Terry.
Michael Hansen was convicted in the death of his infant daughter in a case involving the now much-disputed “shaken baby syndrome” diagnosis. Investigators used jailhouse informant testimony to bolster their scientifically questionable case against Michael.
