From Va Pilot snitch story:

“The decision to put him[Skeeter] on the witness stand was, in part, a tactical one.

“He [Skeeter]got us to the point where the defendant had to take the stand,” Ebert said. With Skeeter’s statement before the jury – that Frederick knew he was shooting at police – defense attorneys needed Frederick to deny it.”

So, if I understand Mr. Ebert correctly, I have a Fifth Amendment right, but the State may undermine it at will by putting known liars on the stand. Ebert is dangerous scum.

Sorry, but this is just too simplistic. For the most part, the rules of evidence in criminal trials are exactly the same as the rules used in civil trials between two private parties. The few places where the rules are different in criminal trials (e.g. confrontation clause limits on hearsay exceptions) are MORE favorable to criminal defendants than the standard civil rules.

I’m not arguing that the criminal justice system isn’t tilted against defendants. But if you want to understand why the system works the way it does you have to go beyond simple slogans like “Designed to Convict”.

Because the system is DESIGNED TO CONVICT, and it does so with a 98% success rate. Right and wrong? Innocent or guilty? It doesn’t matter anymore. All that matters is the statistics for the prosecutors and police.

One particularly stupid move was when Willett asked RF a question about the interview at the police station. He was trying to make it seem as if RF knew who the burglars were, and intended to kill them. He phrased RF’s answer from the interview “They walked past a fifty dollar pressure washer, stupid shit!” with emphasis as if “stupid shit” was a description of a person RF knew. Ryan corrected Willett by rephrasing it without the emphasis, and with the critical word “and” before “stupid shit”. That of course changes the meaning of the phrase. Later that day, Broccoletti played the video of the interview, and the answer that contained that phrase matched RF’s description, and the word “and” was clear as day.

Ryan really helped his own case. Ebert shouldn’t be bragging about forcing him onto the stand.

Oh, that is just so full of win I cannot stand it. How can Mike be handicapped in the future so others can play?

For me, a prosecutor bringing in a jail house snitch means one thing and one thing only:

The prosecutor doubts he has enough evidence to convict.

Then, VOILA, a jailhouse snitch comes forward at an opportune time, and is secretely promised a reduced charges or a reduction in sentence if he cooperates.

Jailhouse snitches were an integral element in many of the 100′s of wrongful convictions that are just now being overturned by DNA testing.

You’re right that many of the hearsay exceptions are justified because they are supposedly more reliable (e.g. excited utterance, dying declaration, business records, etc.). But party admissions are justified instead by an estoppel theory.

The core idea behind barring hearsay is that parties need to be able to challenge the reliability of out-of-court statements. The party admission exception says that you can’t challenge the reliability of your own out-of-court statements.

Let the jokes about what I am going to be doing with that free hand and the only good use of the internet begin.

That’s not actually correct. Hearsay is hearsay regardless of whether the party who said it is available for cross examination.

Your example: Skeeter said “Joe told me Ryan confessed to murder!”

Here, Ryan’s alleged confession would be a party admission, which is an exception to the hearsay rule. BUT Joe’s relation of the confession to Skeeter is pure hearsay and not admissible in any case.

If Joe were available, he could testify that Ryan confessed. But Skeeter could not testify that Joe told him that Ryan confessed, regardless of whether Joe is available, or even if Joe himself has already testify to the confession.

One exception to this. Suppose Joe testifies and says, “Ryan never said anything about the crime.”

Then, Skeeter would be allowed to testify that Joe had told him that Ryan confessed. This would be allowed because the purpose would be to demonstrate that Joe is an unreliable witness, not to prove that the confession happened.

He got us to the point where the defendant had to take the stand,” Ebert said. With Skeeter’s statement before the jury – that Frederick knew he was shooting at police – defense attorneys needed Frederick to deny it.

And for translation…

We knew we were going to lose unless we got Frederick up on the stand, so we just made something up. Justice is for little bitches, I’m here to win.

Ebert then went on to say…

It’s true; very little separates me from the people I prosecute. I am not a beautiful and unique snowflake.

What an asshole.

Does it have a scorpion stinger? Because then you wouldn’t have to pay me.

So… if Skeeter said “Joe told me Ryan confessed to murder!” and Joe accidentally killed himself while making a shiv later, that would be hearsay as Joe was not available for cross examination.

The whole ‘confession exemption’ is wack. It exists so crooked prosecutors can jack confessions out of people through collusion.

If you actually want to confess to a crime, then you have enough knowledge about the crime to point investigators to the evidence they need to convict you without a confession.

In my opinion, if all the prosecution has is a confession, then it was extracted by duress from someone who did not intend to ‘confess’.