By Mrs. Eileen Hunter — about the author. Posted August 11, 2026.
Provenance: the declaration of Professor Robert M. Bloom, sworn December 21, 2022, was filed as Exhibit B-1 to Tony Hunter’s Application for Post-Conviction Relief (La. C.Cr.P. art. 926.2), filed December 30, 2022, in the Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of Ouachita. The transcription below is made from the complete signed and notarized declaration (ten pages); wording, spelling and paragraph numbering follow the signed original, including its typographical errors, and only the signature and notary blocks are omitted. Context and analysis: the Bloom authority page. If any part of this transcription diverges from the signed original, our corrections policy applies.
DECLARATION OF ROBERT M. BLOOM
I, Robert M. Bloom, state as follows:
QUALIFICATIONS
1. I have taught at Boston College Law School since September, 1973. I have been a full professor since 1994. I have also taught at Boston University School of Law, Temple University School of Law (summer abroad in Rome), University College Dublin, Trinity College Dublin, and Kwansei Gakuin Japan. My teaching includes courses in substantive criminal procedure and comparative criminal procedure. In addition, I have directed a law-school clinical program in which my students represented indigent, criminal defendants and on sabbatical acted as prosecutors for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In these capacities I have handled, supervised, or consulted on hundreds of criminal cases. I have written numerous articles and five casebook and 10 examples and explanation books.
2. Since 1999, I have been researching the use of informants in the criminal justice system. This has included reviewing numerous studies, investigations, and cases about informants in general, and jailhouse informants in particular. I have also interviewed judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys regarding this issue. My publications in this area include: a book, Ratting: Use and Abuse of Informants in the American Justice System (Praeger, 2002); “Jailhouse Informants” in the American Bar Association (ABA) publication, Criminal Justice (Spring, 2003); and “What Jurors Should Know about Informants: the Need for Expert Testimony” Mich. St. L. Rev. 345 (2019). I have lectured on jailhouse informants at an ABA Criminal Justice Section program (Baltimore, MD, November, 2005). My publications have been cited on numerous occasions.
3. I have been retained as an expert or consultant on the issue of informants in approximately eleven cases. I have testified in Connecticut Superior Court regarding this issue at trials on six occasions: State v. Covington (2016), State v. McClendon (2016), State v. Lashawn (2016), State v. Wilson (2017), State v. Bruny ( 2018). I have also testified in the State of Washington in 2019 in State v. Sun and State v. Rivas and in 2022 State v Phelps. I also testified on this issue in a pre-trial informant reliability hearing in State v. Hammond (2014) in Lexington, Kentucky. I was also prepared to testify in U.S. v. Wells (2019) in U.S. District Court of Alaska. In these cases, I have testified generally concerning the behavioral patterns associated with the use of criminal informants and related academic research. I am currently a consultant to the ACLU on a case out of Orange County California on the issue of “informant tanks,” where people in custody are put with informants who are likely to get information to be used at trial. I have not offered an opinion on the credibility of any particular informant in any particular case. I have tried to help the fact finder evaluate facts they should be aware of when considering the reliability of jailhouse informants in general.
JURISPRUDENTIAL CAUTION RE: JAILHOUSE INFORMANTS
4. As early as 1952, Justice Robert Jackson opined in Lee v. United States 343 U.S. 747 (1952), “[t]he use of informers, accessories, accomplices, false friends, or any of the other betrayals which are ‘dirty business’ may raise serious questions of credibility.” Federal Judge Stephen Trot 43 Hasting LJ 1381 in his article “Words of warning for a prosecutor using criminal witnesses.” Observed “Informants willingness to do anything includes not only truthfully spilling the beans on friends and relatives, but also lying, committing perjury, manufacturing evidence, soliciting others to corroborate their lies, and double crossing anyone they come inContact with including and especially the prosecutor.” Louisiana has not been exempt from the problems associated with jail house informants. In United States v. Colomb, 448 F.Supp.2d 750, 756 (W.D. La.2006). Federal Judge Tucker Melancon hearing a motion for new trial observed that even though he would rarely grant such a motion to set aside a guilty verdict in a criminal case and that decision should be exercised with great caution and only in exceptional cases. He ordered a new trial in this case because “Issues that have arisen in this case – before trial, during trial and after trial – are troubling. While it may not be, as argued by one of the defense lawyers, that “a cancer is growing within the incarceration system,” occurrences such as occurred in this case suggest that a systemic problem may exist within the penal facilities operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. In the view of the trial judge, the issues raised herein are so substantial and grave that those who have the power and the authority to do so need address them.” I have attached a footnote as appendix A to this decision so as to point out the facts upon which Judge Melancon relied.
5. The concerns of these distinguished judges have been borne out by DNA exonerations. Since the first DNA exoneration in 1989, there have been exonerations of people convicted of serious offenses – including those sentenced to death – in numbers never imagined before the development of DNA technology. Several studies of this phenomenon have shown that false testimony from jailhouse informants is one of the leading contributing factors of wrongful convictions across the nation. According to The Innocence Project, jailhouse informants have played a role in nearly one in five of the 367 DNA-based exoneration cases. A 2004 study conducted by Northwestern Law School’s Center on Wrongful Convictions found that testimony from jailhouse or other criminal informants played a role in 45.9% of the wrongful convictions in capital cases. Today, the National Registry of Exonerations indicates that 22% of all death row exonerations were cases where the prosecution relied on at least one jailhouse informant.
6. Jailhouse informant testimony is notoriously unreliable because the incarcerated witnesses are strongly motivated to say what the prosecution wants in exchange for substantial benefits to themselves. Notwithstanding the inherent problems with credibility, jailhouse informant testimony is among the most persuasive to jurors because jailhouse informants typically allege to have personally heard defendants confess their guilt to the crimes charged. Introduction of a defendant’s confession, from any source, can significantly bolster the prosecution’s case, particularly one lacking other evidence that directly implicates the defendant in the crime. In fact, according to one study, secondary confession testimony has a greater effect on jurors than even eyewitness identifications. (See Stacy Ann Wetmore et al., On the Power of Secondary Confession Evidence, 20 Psychol. Crime & L 339, 354 (2014)).
7. One of the earliest, and most extensive, studies to date concerning jailhouse informants was conducted by the Los Angeles County Grand Jury (hereinafter, “LCGJ”) in 1989-90. One hundred and twenty witnesses testified, including judges, prosecutors, defense lawyers, law enforcement officials and six self-professed jailhouse informants. (See Report of the 1989-90 Los Angeles County Grand Jury: Investigation of the Involvement of Jail House Informants in the Criminal Justice System in Los Angeles County 149-5 (1990)( hereinafter “Report of the 1989-90 Los Angeles County Grand Jury”) This investigation, and other studies discussed herein, have shed light on how these informants operate within the criminal justice system. They have also demonstrated that traditional protections against false testimony – discovery, cross-examination, and jury instructions – are insufficient to ensure reliable jury evaluation of jailhouse informant testimony.
INCENTIVES TO LIE AND BENEFITS
8. Jailhouse informants testify for benefits. The most sought-after benefits are early release and dropped charges. However, jailhouse informants have testified to seeking many other rewards within the prison system, such as more food, access to television and phones, increased visits, better work assignments and transfer to more desirable housing. Another benefit may involve help with parole hearings. In considering the benefits, it is important to be aware that jails and prisons are undesirable places by design. It is hard to imagine a greater incentive to testify falsely than a promise to get out of jail or reduce one’s time in prison.
9. In most instances, the benefits for informant testimony are not realized until after the testimony has been given. This arrangement allows an informant to testify that there were no promises or benefits given in return for his testimony. The withholding of specific promises until after the testimony may also allow a prosecutor to avoid the disclosure requirements of Giglio v. United States 405 U.S. 150 (1972).
10. However, benefits are expected, and are realized, depending upon the helpfulness of the testimony. Everyone in the system knows how the game is played. Prosecutors and informants share a tacit understanding that the informant will ultimately be rewarded for his testimony. (See Michael Cassidy, “‘Soft Words of Hope’: Giglio, Accomplice Witnesses, and the Problem of Implied Inducements,” 98 NW. L. REV. 1129, 1138 n.52 (2004)). In his study of the initial 250 DNA exoneration cases, Professor Brandon Garrett discovered that jail house informants often produced “made to order” statements supporting the State’s case. Few admitted they were testifying for any gain, and “[s]ome informants claimed they were testifying as public-minded citizens.” Professor Garrett found that many of these informants nevertheless ultimately received favorable outcomes in their own cases. (See Brandon L. Garrett, Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong, 124 (2011))
11. In recognition of this problem, in 2012 the Florida Innocence commission recommended specific provisions to Florida discovery rules to require the disclosure of informant “expectations,” as well explicit promises made, in exchange for testimony. (See Florida Innocence Commission Final Report, 76-82 (June 2012) (recommending enhanced discovery regarding the State’s use of informants, including the requirement that prosecution disclose “whether the informant has received, or expects to receive, anything in exchange for his or her testimony”); In re: Amendments to Fla. Rule of Crim. Procedure 3.220., 140 So. 3d 538 (Fla. 2014)(adopting Commission recommendation requiring discovery obligations specific to informants)).
12. Informants are also well aware that the benefits to be received will be based on the usefulness of the testimony on behalf of the State. Studies have shown that jailhouse informants can be quite resourceful in gathering the information necessary to provide “useful” testimony. For example, witnesses in LCGJ investigation described relying on media reports, having friends and relatives provide the information by attending court hearings or investigating themselves, and even impersonating a law enforcement officer over phone to tap into knowledge already in law enforcement’s hands. Informants often share or exchange information they have gathered with one another. In the end, a determined informant can create a very convincing story for the jury. As one informant explained:
[T]he jury not knowing the system of how it works is going to believe [me] when I get up there with all these details and facts that this guy sat in the jail cell, or he sat on the bus [transporting to court], or he sat in the holding tank somewhere or told me through a door or something, they’re going to believe me.
(See Report of the 1989-90 Los Angeles County Grand Jury, at 72.)
13. Prosecutors also have incentives to rely on informants, particularly when it will shore up an otherwise weak case. Professor Yaroshefsky of the Hofstra Law School interviewed 25 former U.S Attorneys in the Southern District of New York, and sixteen defense attorneys. She discovered that prosecutors would often shape and polish the testimony of informants so as to meet with their theory of the case. (Ellen Yaroshefsky, Cooperation with Federal Prosecutors: Experiences of Truth Telling and Embellishment, 68 Fordham L. Rev. 917, 930 (1999)).
14. Even if prosecutors understand the risk of a jailhouse informant manufacturing evidence in the abstract, there are a number of psychological impediments the prosecutor faces, including confirmatory bias or “tunnel vision”, which may make the prosecutor a poor judge of an informant’s credibility. (See, e.g., Alafair S. Burke, Improving Prosecutorial Decision Making: Some Lessons of Cognitive Science, 47 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1587 (2006) (arguing that confirmation bias, selective information processing, belief perseverance, and avoidance of cognitive dissonance impede prosecutor decision making); Keith A. Findley & Michael S. Scott, The Multiple Dimensions of Tunnel Vision in Criminal Cases, 2006 Wis. L. Rev. 291 (analyzing how tunnel vision-focusing on a particular suspect-affects all phases of criminal proceedings); Dianne L. Martin, Lessons About Justice from the “Laboratory” of Wrongful Convictions: Tunnel Vision, the Construction of Guilt and Informer Evidence, 70 UMKC L. Rev. 847 (2002) (exploring how tunnel vision leads to constructing guilt based on unreliable informants)).
15. In addition, prosecutors or law enforcement officers may erroneously believe they will be able to reliably weed out lying informants. Yet, “[d]ozens of studies of the communication of deception provide compelling evidence that people are not very skilled at distinguishing when others are lying from when they are telling the truth. In experimental studies of detecting deception, accuracy is typically only slightly better than chance.” Bella M. DePaulo et al., The Accuracy-Confidence Correlation in the Detection of Deception, 1 Personality & Soc. Psychol. Rev. 346, 346 (1997); Saul M. Kassin, Human Judges of Truth, Deception, and Credibility: Confident but Erroneous, 23 Cardozo L. Rev. 809, 809 (2002).
16. In February, 2005, the American Bar Association House of Delegates, concerned about the veracity of jailhouse informants, passed the following resolution: “Resolved that the American Bar Association urges federal, state, local and territorial governments to reduce the risk of convicting the innocent while increasing the likelihood of convicting the guilty, by ensuring that no prosecution should occur based solely upon uncorroborated jailhouse informant testimony.”
STATE V. TONY HUNTER
17. There were no eyewitnesses to the homicides and no physical evidence to link Mr. Hunter to the homicides on Greenwood Drive. The prosecution presented the testimony of three jailhouse informants who testified to having heard Tony Hunter confess to the triple homicide in Tanglewood while incarcerated at the Ouachita Parish Correctional Center. I have reviewed the testimonies of Clarence Kennedy, Vaccara Comanche, Christopher Wiggins, and Glen Dale Nelson, as well as their recorded statements to investigators, and criminal histories.
The circumstances under which the informants came forward and testified suggests that the testimony of these informants should be carefully scrutinized. Particularly problematic is the fact that Glen Dale Nelson, the informant at the center of the conversations that were allegedly overheard, was never called to testify because he was found to be so thoroughly unreliable that neither the prosecution nor the defense called him as a witness.
For the three jailhouse informants that were called by the prosecution, each informant’s testimony was at critical times inconsistent with their own previous recorded statements to investigators and with each other. There was likewise limited corroboration evidence of these informants: no video footage, recreation yard logs, or corrections witness to bolster the reliability of the alleged confessions. There is information to indicate that due to the acoustics of the window separating the rec yard from the cells, a conversation could not have been held between inmates on the rec yard and inmates inside a cell on POD 10.
In addition, all three informants had extensive experience with the criminal justice system and were facing lengthy prison sentences. Although all three indicated that they requested assistance with their sentences in exchange for their cooperation, there were no benefits in fact received for their testimony. However, prosecutors want their informant witnesses to testify that they received no promises or deals to increase their credibility in front of the jury. Nevertheless, prosecutors and informants share a tacit understanding that the informant will ultimately be rewarded for his testimony.
No expert testimony or cautionary jury instructions were presented to the jury at Tony Hunter’s trial to educate them about how to judge the credibility of jailhouse informants.1
Weeks before any of the informants came forward, On June 12, 2001, KTVE aired multiple stories announcing:
“A Ouachita Parish triple homicide case remains unsolved, but investigators hope an arrest today could help the investigation. Today… Tony Hunter, also known as Trigger, was arrested for second degree murder charges. He’s accused in the Monroe robbery and shooting of Roderick Hall last year in January. Investigators admit this case could have a possible connection to a triple homicide in March which took the lives of a man and two young children. However, deputies will not give any more details on that connection.”
Clarence Kennedy was serving a 25-year sentence for first degree robbery, with 20 years suspended at the time of his testimony against Tony Hunter.
On August 20, 2001, Kennedy informed the OPSO that he wanted to give a statement regarding the triple homicide in Tanglewood. Kennedy stated that on August 6th or 7th he heard knocking on the window of his cell and Tony Hunter who was outside on the rec yad asked him to get Glen Dale Nelson. Kennedy complied and a few minutes later, Kennedy came into his cell and jumped up on the bunk bed. According to Kennedy, Hunter asked Nelson what he had said because “the police knew too much, that somebody is talking.” When Nelson denied saying anything, Hunter threatened to kill his brother and mama if he said anything. According to Kennedy, Hunter and Nelson started arguing. Glen Dale asked why Hunter killed the kids and Hunter replied that the kids were not supposed to be there. Kennedy stated that the conversation upset him so much that he immediately tried to report it to a guard.
Kennedy testified that while he was incarcerated at the Ouachita Correctional Center, Tony Hunter, who was out in the yard, knocked on the window and told Kennedy to get Glen Dale Nelson. Kennedy testified that he complied with Tony’s request and when Nelson went to the window to talk, Kennedy overheard their conversation. Kennedy testified that he specifically heard Tony ask “what did you say, because the police know too much?” He also heard him say that he was robbing the adult victim, and that the kids were not supposed to be there so he had to kill the kids. Finally, Kennedy claimed to have overheard Hunter say that there was someone acting as a lookout who was positioned outside of the house and at some point during the commission of the crime the lookout heard the children hollering and ran inside of the house. The lookout caught one of the children, and told Hunter, “you got to do them too.”
Kennedy did not recall the date of this conversation, though he knew it was a on a weekday between noon and 3:00 p.m. He later claimed however, that it was “late in the evening.” Kennedy did not say anything about Tony Hunter using a .22 in the homicides.
Kennedy claimed that he never asked for or was offered any promise for his testimony. He also denied telling the defense investigator that one of the deputies with whom he spoke indicated he could get some help with his sentence. Kennedy acknowledged that he could be multi-billed for his prior convictions for unauthorized entry possession of crack cocaine, receiving stolen things, and twice for unauthorized use of a moveable. The State has not charged Kennedy with being a multiple offender.
On April 18, 2001, Kennedy was charged by a Bill of Information in Case No. 01-F0649 with Armed Robbery.
On June 8, 2001, Kennedy was charged by a Bill of Information in Case No. 01-F0948 with simple burglary of a vehicle.
On August 20, 2001, Kennedy gave a recorded statement to OPSO about Tony Hunter being involved in the Tanglewood triple homicide.
On February 11, 2002, Kennedy pled guilty to the reduced charge of First Degree Robbery and received an illegal sentence of 25 years, with 20 years suspended. The Simple Burglary charge was dismissed pursuant to a plea in 01-F0649B
Vaccara Comanche was serving a ten-year sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm followed by a consecutive five-year sentence for a probation violation for aggravated battery at the time of his testimony against Tony Hunter. Comanche had a prior conviction for burglary. Comanche gave information about at least one other case when he gave a recorded statement against Tony Hunter.
On July 20, 2001, Vaccara Comanche contacted OPSO and said he wanted to give them information on “several” homicides. He said that he had not been promised anything in exchange. Comanche said he heard rumors that “Trigger” committed the homicides. According to Comanche on July 17 at 8 or 9 a.m., he overheard Tony Hunter and Glen Dale Nelson arguing at the window. Hunter asked another inmate to get Glen Dale at the window and Glen Dale didn’t want to talk, but after about fifteen minutes went to the cell.
Comanche told investigators Nelson was on the top bunk and Comanche was on the bottom bunk when the conversation took place. He said Tony Hunter asked Glen Dale Nelson “what he did with the .22” and why he told “the people he was at the Roderick Hall murder.” Comanche said there was another inmate on the rec yard with Hunter at the time. Comanche told investigators that Hunter threatened Nelson, personally, and Patrice Foy “for snitching” during that conversation. According to Comanche, about the Tanglewood homicides, Hunter said, “You know I had to handle my business, wasn’t supposed to be nobody in the house but Chico. Then he was like uh man, them little kids was in there, then I had to chase them little f*ckers around.” Comanche stated that no one knew he was there because “it was a blanket like uh, uh in front of the bed and so it was blocking me out” …“I pulled the plugs outta my ear and turned the radio off so nobody wouldn’t know that I was down there.”
Comanche then said that the day before, July 19, the same day Comanche asked to speak to investigators, Glen Dale Nelson told him that Hunter and Patrice Foy had been “at the club” and followed Chico to Greenwood Drive. Hunter pulled a gun on Chico and Chico led him to the money and to 15 lbs of marijuana and a wad of money that was inside the hole in the wall. Comanche said that after the murders, Tony Hunter went back to the club.
Comanche reiterated that the conversation about the .22 occurred at the window.
According to Comanche, he had only known Glen Dale Nelson “the little time that he was up in there” but Nelson confided in him about the Tanglewood homicides because he had to “get it off his mind.”
Comanche testified that at the time of the conversation at the window, there were four or five other inmates in the cell where he and Glen Dale Nelson were. He testified that the conversation was approximately ten minutes long and took place “after chow” around noon. Comanche testified that he was “sitting right next to” Nelson when the conversation with Hunter took place. Comanche said he was interviewed about three times in reference to the homicides. Comanche testified that he had asked the investigators for help on his case, and Detective Harris told him that he couldn’t make any promises, the “only thing he could do is talk to somebody.” Comanche testified that he told investigators that the .22 Tony Hunter used was in Texas.
Comanche testified that he climbed on the top bunk beside Nelson to listen to the conversation, then when questioned about the inconsistency of where he was at the time of the conversation he said “I’m telling the jury that at sometimes he knew I was right beside him and sometimes he didn’t know I was there”.
When confronted with the inconsistency about the time of the conversation, Comanche said there were “more than one conversation on different days… it was several cells that we went in when we were having conversation. Earlier in the, ah, the one when I was in the bed I was down in somebody else cell. That was Cell A. And during the other conversation when I was sitting on the bunk with him was in Cell C.”
Glen Dale Nelson was the person to whom Tony Hunter was allegedly inculpating himself in the triple homicide on Greenwood Drive which was overheard by Vaccara Comanche and Clarence Kennedy. Nelson did not testify at Tony Hunter’s trial. However, his name was mentioned during Hunter’s trial no less than 17 times.
On January 3, 2012, Glen Dale Nelson swore an affidavit stating that Vaccara Comanche and Clarence Kennedy’s testimony against Tony Hunter was:
“a jailhouse conning scheme organized by my friends Vaccara Comanche and Clarence Kennedy to get a conviction for the state against our enemy Tony Hunter in the triple homicide. I informed Detective David Harris that me and Tony Hunter are enemies and that I didn’t know anything about the triple homicide. I did not testify because Hunter’s attorneys nor investigator interviewed me about the triple homicide. If Hunter’s attorney or investigator would have interviewed me about the triple homicide, I would have testified to the truth in Hunter’s behalf that me and Tony Hunter have never had a discussion about the triple homicide. It was a jailhouse con by my friends Vaccara Comanche and Clarence Kennedy to use my name to establish their jailhouse scheme so they could get help from the District Attorney’s Office for their charges.”
On December 19, 2012, Michael Ruddick, the prosecuting attorney against Tony Hunter, swore an affidavit averring that he did not call Glen Dale Nelson at Tony Hunter’s trial because “he was totally unreliable and it appeared he would say anything that he thought would help him with his various legal problems.
Christopher Wiggins was serving a ten-year sentence for forgery and facing a multi-bill for five serious prior felony convictions including robbery, manslaughter, and burglary at the time of his testimony against Tony Hunter.
On July 23, 2001, Wiggins pled to two counts of forgery and received a ten-year sentence on each, to be served concurrently. No multiple offender bill was filed. Wiggins faced a life sentence if multi- billed by the prosecution. On July 31, 2001, Wiggins was transferred to Franklin Parish Correctional Center.
On August 2, 2001, investigators approached Wiggins and interviewed him. According to Wiggins’ recorded statement, Tony Hunter told him that he met Glen Dale Nelson on the night of the Tanglewood homicides and waited in the truck while Glen Dale Nelson knocked on the door of 221 Greenwood Drive and was let in the house. Nelson returned to the truck and told Tony that someone was there. Tony Hunter then allegedly kicked open the front door, robbed the occupant, and then killed him. According to Wiggins, Tony Hunter was about to leave when the kids saw their faces, so he had to shoot them.
Initially, Wiggins refused to testify at Tony Hunter’s trial. He returned the following day to testify. Wiggins admitted that after he was taken out of court, he asked the District Attorney’s Office to give him leniency on his sentence. He testified that he was not promised anything in exchange for his testimony. Wiggins testified he was held in an isolation cell with Tony Hunter for 2-3 months. Wiggins testified that Tony told him he kicked the door in and committed a robbery in the Tanglewood area which “lead to three people being killed.” Wiggins testified that Tony said “he went to rob them and the guy didn’t want to, ah, show him where the drugs and money was so he shot him.” Regarding the kids, Wiggins stated that “they seen his face upon him leaving out the house and he couldn’t leave no witness behind so he had to kill them.” Wiggins testified that Hunter told him he used a .38 and a 9 millimeter to kill the victims.
In March 2014, Christopher Wiggins told an investigator for Tony Hunter that he was approached by his attorney and prosecutors to testify at Hunter’s trial about Hunter’s alleged “confession” about the triple homicide. He denied that Hunter ever confessed to him and was adamant that his testimony at Hunter’s trial was only repeating what he said he heard from a third inmate. He was represented by the public defender at the time and was promised a reduction in his sentence for forgery and a probation violation. Wiggins said he would not sign an affidavit because he has been tricked before but that he would testify at a hearing that he never heard Tony Hunter confess to the triple homicide.
Wiggins spoke to an investigator for Tony Hunter in July 2022 and told her that he was approached by officers in 2001 while he was at Ouachita Correctional Center and asked to wear a wire and to try to entrap Tony Hunter into confessing to the Tanglewood homicides. He refused. The officers then asked him to say that he heard Tony Hunter confess to the homicides and he agreed. He told the investigator that he has carried guilt about lying in his testimony against Tony Hunter for the past 25 years.
18. It is my opinion that the circumstances of this case, specifically the lack of external corroboration for the informants’ testimony, the potential media contamination of the informants, the number of cases the informants were providing information about, the informants’ status as career offenders facing lengthy sentences at the discretion of the prosecution, the informants’ perceived and/or real incentives to provide information against Tony Hunter and to testify falsely, and the failure to give a cautionary jury instruction, raise serious risks that the informants’ testimony was fabricated and/or false.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing in true and correct.
[Signature and notary blocks appear on the signed original.]
1 Cf. United States v. Villafranca, 260 F.3d 374, 380 (5th Cir.2001); See also Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions: Criminal § 1.14 (“The testimony of an alleged accomplice, and/or the testimony of one who provides evidence against a defendant as an informer for pay, for immunity from punishment, or for personal advantage or vindication, must always be examined and weighed by the jury with greater care and caution than the testimony of ordinary witnesses. You, the jury, must decide whether the witness’s testimony has been affected by these circumstances, by the witness’s interest in the outcome of the case, by prejudice against the defendant, or by the benefits that the witness has received either financially or as a result of being immunized from prosecution. You should keep in mind that such testimony is always to be received with caution and weighed with great care. You should never convict any defendant upon the unsupported testimony of such a witness unless you believe that testimony beyond a reasonable doubt.”)
Analysis and context: Professor Bloom’s authority page · the informants, measured against the record · all case documents.