Yes, sometimes.  But a big part of the success of the FBI (and other law enforcement agencies) comes from snitches.  Also called informants, confidential reliable informants, and rats.

Here’s a great PBS Frontline documentary about snitches:  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/snitch/

Who are snitches?

1.  Confidential reliable informants.  These are people who work regularly with the FBI to provide information and evidence against suspects.  The CRI is used often to infiltrate groups the FBI thinks are dangerous.  Since it takes a while for these CRIs to gain entrance and the trust of the suspects, they become long-term workers for the FBI.
2. Co-defendants.  When the FBI charges a group of suspects with a crime, often they will approach one of the least guilty people and offer them money or a deal on their own criminal case.  The co-defendant may testify against the others in return for less prison time, for instance.
3. Cellmate.  If the FBI wants information or a confession from a charged person, they may send a plant into the jail cell with the target.  The cellmate tries to coax the target into talking about his crime or even admitting his guilt.  The cellmate is not wired but can later testify in the target’s trial that a confession was made to the cellmate.

Why does the FBI use snitches?

It’s easier than doing the hard work of investigating themselves, talking to dozens of witnesses, and trying to get suspects to confess to their crimes.  The snitches gain the trust of the target and can provide the information to the FBI and testify in court, if necessary.

Why do snitches do it?

Freedom or money.  Confidential reliable informants were used by the FBI in the 70s to infiltrate the Black Panthers and Hell’s Angels.  The snitches were originally part of the group but got in trouble.  The FBI offered either money or a deal on the CRI’s criminal case in return for giving the FBI information about the group’s activities.

This sounds easy.  Is there a problem with using snitches?

A study by Northwestern University found that between 1973-2010 in cases that were appealed and all convictions reversed, 45% of the people were convicted by the use of snitches.  That means, in almost half of the cases where a snitch was used, the testimony of the snitch turned out to be false—yet the suspects were all convicted at trial.

Here’s a great site for more information and the problems of using snitches in law enforcement:  http://www.snitching.org/p/ini.html

What do you think?

The post How Does the FBI Really Solve Crimes? appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

The boys chose to “take things outside.” Once there, a couple of fights broke out until one of the guys pulled a gun from his backpack and started firing at his attacker and at everyone else in the area.  Two rival gangsters were hit, the participants fled, and the young man who urged the shooter on, became my client.

In preparation for trial, I interviewed him several times. One of the accusations against him was a charge of “crime committed for the benefit of a gang,” a charge in Minnesota that, if found guilty, means a longer prison sentence may be added.

Of course, I talked to my client about his gang involvement. He admitted he’d been a gangster a long time before but since he’d been released from a juvenile program, he decided to get out of the life and start over. He wasn’t a gangster, he told me, and neither was his friend, the alleged shooter.

I have to admit, he was believable. For instance, my client didn’t dress like a gangster, avoided the colors, and the hair cuts. He even looked a little preppy.

Okay, so I went along with his story. After more than 30 years defending crooks, I usually don’t believe much of what they tell me, but this young man seemed convincing.

As we proceeded to trial, I was given all the evidence the prosecutor intended to use against my client. It constituted a pile of paper almost a foot thick–not a good sign if you’re trying to defend someone!

Still, the evidence against him wasn’t the strongest. Maybe, just maybe we could beat the case at trial… Buried deep in the pile were some photos. They intrigued me. I flipped over the pages and stared in horror at copies of Facebook pages.

Not only was the shooter in the photos but so was my client. They were postings from Facebok for each of them. And guess what they were doing on their page? I went to their site.

Each guy was dressed in gang clothing, made gang signs, had what seemed like dozens of guns in the pictures, and smiled as they held up guns and pointed them toward the camera. These guys were really smart and sophisticated…about social media and Facebook.

Audio sound tracks were included that had rap songs glorifying gangsters and videos of each of them threatening the cameras with guns and signs.

At the trial, the prosecutor spent a long time showing the Facebook pages to the jury. Unfortunately, it didn’t take long for the jury to figure out what was going on and find my client guilty.

Be careful what you post!

The post Convicted of a Crime by Facebook! appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

With 70,000 Somalis in Minnesota, we have the largest concentration in the United States. For two years, Ms. Shah and other reporters followed the story of the young Somali men who disappeared from the Twin Cities. The FBI said they were recruited to fight for a militia in Somalia called Al-Shabab. Perhaps some did.

But what about the rest of them who were never found?

My new book, Reprisal, tells the fictional story of what might have “really” happened to the missing boys.

Ms. Shah’s reporting tells another story–one of a vast, intricate network of gangsters who prey upon young Somali people. I don’t know if there’s any connection between the young men who disappeared and the girls that Ms. Shah writes about, but clearly there are problems in the Somali community.

The reporter goes on to detail the difficulties faced by not only the adult Somalis coming to this country but their children also. My work in the courtrooms with this population confirms much of what is reported in the article. The children arrive here without parents, who may have died or are missing, and must live with various relatives. These older relatives often have different ideas about the role the young girls should play in the family and community.

One of the biggest problems I’ve encountered is the distrust the Somali community has for outsiders, including law enforcement. For decades in Somalia there has not been a functioning government. People rely upon their clans and extended families for their survival and safety. When they arrive in the United States, many of these attitudes remain for a long time.

As a result, the community can be insulated from others. That makes it easier for gangsters to prey upon the young girls. I’ve had experiences in Juvenile Court where young Somali girls end up in Minnesota living with their “uncles”–who really aren’t relatives at all.

I’ve also seen the “two worlds” that Ms. Shah identifies in many of the immigrant groups. In the Hmong community for instance, the parents often cannot speak English. They depend on the children to interpret and deal with American society. You can imagine the power and independence the children gain. I suspect the same situation exists in the Somali community also.

Check out the Strib article for a good story and explanation of what the Somali people are doing in the face of gangsters to help their children.

The post Gangsters Prey on Somali Girls appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

Have you noticed more street people lately? Wanderers, panhandlers, and even those bad musicians playing all over? (Careful there…I’m a musician and I always throw money into those open instrument cases, no matter how bad the musician!) How about the guy I saw yesterday sitting on a busy street wearing a top hat, dirty shirt, two different shoes, reading a battered paperback.

They come from a variety of places. I’ve seen an increase in the last ten years coming through our courtrooms.

For years, at the state and federal level, money was appropriated to care for the mentally ill people in our midst who didn’t have family or insurance to help. Room, board, and medical care were expensive, but provided a minimum safety net for poor, homeless, and mentally ill people.

All that changed with the cut-back of government support. Now, many of those people have become street people, wandering in search of food, a place to stay, and care.

As a criminal defense lawyer, I most often meet them in court–charged with a variety of low-level crimes. These people live between the jail, courthouse, workhouse, and the emergency room of the county medical center–at greater cost to us than the original programs.

I’m still shocked when clients readily agree to go to the workhouse for a few weeks–something us middle-class people would avoid at all costs–simply because the offender wanted a few good meals and a clean bed.

In Hennepin County (Minneapolis) in Minnesota, something good is happening for the street people and the taxpayers.

A specialty court called, Criminal Mental Health Court was established to funnel those criminals with mental health needs to resources that will help them break the cycle. When lower-level offenders who need mental health care are identified, they move to the new court. It is staffed by a understanding and progressive judge, Judge Richard Hopper, who can direct resources, penalties, and rehabilitation to each of the miscreants who appear before him.

The court has a psychiatrist, social workers, probation officers, prosecutors, and defense lawyers to make certain that all constitutional rights are upheld. The teams, led by Community Corrections speacialist Lori Swenson, cooperate to determine what plan should be followed to keep the criminal out of the system, become stabilized, and hopefully, become productive.

It’s a radical change from what’s happened for years: the offender pleads guilty, is sentenced to some days in a workhouse, no one addresses the mental health needs, and when released, the offender has few other choices (or, for some who are severely mentally ill, no other choices) but to go back to the streets and commit crimes.

Let’s look at the costs for a moment. Previous housing programs were expensive, I admit. But today, a low level criminal with mental health problems may come into court a few times a month after committing crimes. There’s the cost to all the victims, the cost of jails, courts, judges, prosecutors, defense lawyers, probation officers, and workhouses. These same people often use the county medical center as their primary care resource, which costs additional hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The Criminal Mental Health Court has a centralized resource center where the judge can order the offender to participate in services. It’s hoped that with adequate and correct resources the mentally ill people who wander our streets may find help to change.

It looks promising–let’s hope it works as well as it’s been planned!

The post Crazy People Who Commit Crimes appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

In the recent Thompkins case, the Supreme Court ruled that unless a citizen who’s under arrest as a criminal suspect actually says, “I don’t want to talk or I won’t talk without a lawyer,” police can continue questioning him for a long time..until they get a confession.

Suspect, Van Chester Thompkins, after he was read his Miranda rights–which say a person may remain silent and that if he wants, he may have a lawyer present before answering any questions–didn’t say anything. Police continued to question him for three hours. Finally, in a question about God, Thompkins confessed to a murder.

In my experience as a prosecutor and defense lawyer, even the juveniles know enough, by now, to tell police they don’t want to talk. At least in Minnesota, the police respect the law and quit questioning.

The Supremes now say that unless the suspect specifically says he doesn’t want to talk anymore, the police can wear him down and keep questioning for as long as they all have the patience.

Is this right?

The decision was close, 5-4, with the dissent saying the decision “turns Miranda upside down,” because now a person, instead of remaining silent, has to…well, talk. And say they don’t want to talk!

Does this sound like a bunch of “out-of -touch” judges? Only a lawyer could think up this kind of stuff.

The Miranda decision was always a balancing act. The Supremes tried to balance the need of the community/police to get information against the right of citizens to not implicate themselves in crimes. (A basic Constitutional right, after all) If the suspect clammed-up, it could frustrate an investigation but protected our basic rights as citizens.

In my experience, the Miranda right to remain silent is seldom a deterrent to good police work. Almost always, there is more evidence in a case that points to the suspect. Sure, a confession is always helpful to the prosecution! But many times, the police have done enough to obtain evidence to convict without a confession.

In the few instances where there aren’t any other witnesses and a confession would solve the case, the police and prosecutors are hampered without it.

I’ve found that many suspects confess anyway. Even after they’ve been given their Miranda warnings, they still love to talk. Good cops are trained to take advantage of this need for most criminals to “spill their guts.” I remember working with a Minneapolis cop we called, “Father O’Brien.” His real name was Dick O’Brien (Unfortunately he died much too young) and he was an expert at getting confessions from suspects. Even after he’d given a Miranda warning, he’d ask if the suspect wanted to talk about other things–they usually did. Sure enough, Father O’Brien would work the conversation around to the crime, remind the suspect of his right to remain silent, and the suspect would confess to everything!

What do you think of the Court’s ruling? Do police have too much power? Not enough?

The post Is Miranda Dead? appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.