From: Michael Novick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> FORWARDED MESSAGE =============== >Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 20:05:02 EST >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A H Clements) > >SNITCH > >PBS airdate: Tuesday, January 12, 1999, 9 P.M., 90 minutes > >In the last five years, nearly a third of defendants in >federal drug trafficking cases have had their sentences >reduced because they informed on other people?they >snitched. Some informants didn't serve any time at all. >Since the passing of strict anti-drug legislation in the >1980s, snitches have become key players in the war on drugs >and are used by the FBI, DEA, Customs, and other law >enforcement agencies in almost every drug bust, seizure, and >arrest. But these laws, designed in part to help catch drug >kingpins, are in most cases landing small-time offenders in >prison for as many as ten years to life without the chance >for parole. > >In "Snitch," airing Tuesday, January 12, at 9 p.m., on PBS >(check local listings), FRONTLINE examines how mandatory >minimum sentence legislation turned the use of informants >into the lynchpin of prosecutorial strategy in the war on >drugs. In the ninety-minute broadcast, producer Ofra Bikel >takes viewers inside the mind of the informant and profiles >some unsettling cases in which minor offenders are serving >harsh prison sentences on the word of a snitch. > >"The war on drugs and its use of informants have had >devastating consequences on our justice system, the fabric >of our society, and the family," says Bikel. "Making >informing the only way for the accused to escape the full >force of a sentence is a dangerous idea which is eroding the >individual's rights in the judicial process." > >At the height of the crack cocaine epidemic in the late >1980s, Congress passed federal laws creating minimum >sentence requirements in drug-trafficking cases. "The >reason why we have the mandatory minimums is because of >these soft-on-crime judges that we have in this >society...judges who, who just will not get tough on crime, >get tough especially on pushers of drugs that are killing >our youth," says Senator Orrin Hatch. "We set some >reasonable standards within which judges have to rule rather >than allowing them to just put people out on probation who >otherwise are killing our kids." > >But as early as 1991, the Congressional Sentencing >Commission reported a survey which revealed that all defense >lawyers and nearly half of prosecutors had serious problems >with mandatory minimum sentences. Most of the judges >pronounced them "manifestly unjust." > >"These mandatories came in the last couple days before the >congressional recess....No hearings, no consideration by the >federal judges, no input from the Bureau of Prisons. I mean >even DEA didn't testify," says Eric Sterling, who was then >counsel to the chairman of the House sub-committee on >crime. "The whole thing is kind of cobbled together with >sort of chewing gum and baling wire. Numbers are picked out >of air. And we see what these consequences are of that kind >of legislating." > >FRONTLINE explores the case of Clarence Aaron, a college >student and athlete who had friends that sold drugs. For >$1,500, Clarence drove those friends and his cousin to meet >some people he knew who were also involved in drugs. Later, >when his friends were caught dealing, prosecutors presented >them with their only option under the mandatory minimum >sentencing laws to reduce their sentences?snitch. They >informed on Clarence. > >"What makes it the worst case I ever had was there was >absolutely no cocaine introduced into evidence, there was no >cocaine seen...the police had no cocaine, the FBI had no >cocaine, there was no scientific evidence, no fingerprints, >nothing, the entirety of the case was based upon the >testimony of what they call cooperating individuals," says >Clarence's defense lawyer, Dennis Knizley. > >All four witnesses who testified against Clarence had >previous criminal records, and all four faced life >sentences. One, a self-avowed drug kingpin, was sentenced >to twelve years, two served less than five years, and >Clarence's cousin walked free. With no previous record and >no physical evidence, Clarence is serving three life terms >without the chance for parole. > >"Snitch" examines how when a small technical amendment, the >conspiracy amendment, was added to the mandatory minimum >sentencing law in 1988, it created a huge change in the >prosecution of drug offenders. The lowest person in a drug >conspiracy could be punished with the maximum sentence >designed for a kingpin. > >"If the mandatory minimums were a result of haste and excess >by Congress, conspiracy as applied to these mandatories was >completely by oversight and by accident," says Sterling. >"It was submitted as part of a simple technical correction's >amendment. No one even thought at all about what the >implications were of...of applying conspiracy." But the >implications of the conspiracy amendment are far reaching. > >FRONTLINE profiles the case of Lulu May Smith of Mobile, >Alabama, who was in her late fifties when she was sentenced >to seven years in prison for conspiracy to distribute >drugs. Lulu May's son, Darren Sharp, had been identified by >law enforcement as being a crack cocaine dealer. > >When Sharp found out he was going to be indicted, he fled. >Lulu May was arrested as a co-conspirator and used by >prosecutors to pressure Sharp into turning himself in. He >didn't, and her case went to trial. > >"The trial lasted about fourteen days because of the number >of defendants and all the different counts we had to prove," >prosecutor Willy Huntley tells FRONTLINE. "I think she was >probably the last person who was indicted, and the verdicts >kept coming back guilty, guilty, guilty, and the closer we >got to her name the more I kept hoping, please, let it be >not guilty...but it got to her name, and they said guilty >too, and, you know the rest of the story." > >Before Congress enacted mandatory minimum sentences, many >currently serving long prison terms would have received >short sentences or even probation. In 1992, when >eighteen-year-old Joey Settembrino was arrested for selling >a small amount of drugs, he and his parents assumed he would >receive probation. He had never sold drugs before and would >have received only $500 for the deal. But, under the new >legislation, Joey faced a minimum of ten years in prison, >unless he agreed to set up one of his friends. > >"I didn't want to do ten years in jail, but I also...didn't >want to give up one of my friends either...I was stuck in >the middle," he says. > >Desperate to help his son, Joey's father, James Settembrino, >learned that information about drug dealers?supplied by >anyone?could help reduce Joey's sentence. Joey's father >volunteered to help. > >"They say to you if you can do this, find people that have >drugs and purchase drugs from them, we'll act favorably in >giving your son a...reduction," says Settembrino. "And I >said, well why would you do that? 'Well you want your son >to get reduced, right?' I said, yes. 'We want convictions, >and that's why we do it.'" > >After searching for people who were involved with dealing >drugs, Settembrino eventually spent $70,000 on an informant >to help set up a deal with a South American drug smuggler. >Settembrino and a DEA agent were to pose as buyers. But, at >the last minute, the prosecutor reneged on his deal with >Settembrino, and Joey went to trial. He received the >mandatory minimum of ten years, a sentence which the judge >himself pronounced "excessive." > >"They say that they want to get the big guy, they want to >get the big fish, and that's why they go about getting all >these little fish, because eventually you get the big fish," >says Joey. "Well what they don't realize is that when the >big fish finally gets caught, he tells on the little fish >and he's free. And I think that's what makes the system >very, very messed up." > >Access FRONTLINE ONLINE at www.pbs.org/frontline for more on >this report, including: >� a special report on the recent federal court ruling >challenging government leniency deals; >� a background interview with producer Ofra Bikel; >� experts' views on the pros and cons of using >informers; >� a closer look at cases profiled in the program; >� more of the interviews with prosecutors and judges; >� and, a quiz on drug laws and prosecutions. > > > "Snitch" is produced by Ofra Bikel. > Funding for FRONTLINE is provided through the >support of PBS viewers with additional funding for >investigative reporting provided by The Florence and John >Schumann Foundation. > FRONTLINE is closed-captioned for deaf and >hard-of-hearing viewers. > The executive producer for FRONTLINE is Michael >Sullivan. > The senior executive producer for FRONTLINE is David >Fanning. > >Press contacts: >Jim Bracciale [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Rick Byrne [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Chris Kelly [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Outreach contact: >Emily Gallagher [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Press, Outreach, and PBS station >inquiries: (617) 783-3500 >Viewer comments and inquiries: >(617) 492-2777 X5355 > >-- >The November Coalition >795 South Cedar >Colville WA 99114 >(509) 684-1550 >http://www.november.org > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. People Against Racist Terror (PART) PO Box 1055 Culver City CA 90232 Tel.: 310-288-5003 E-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> URL: <http://people.we.mediaone.net/part2001/index.html> Order our quarterly: "Turning the Tide:Journal of Anti-Racist Activism, Research & Education" End the racist death penalty! Free Mumia Abu-Jamal, Alejandrina Torres, and all political prisoners and P.O.W.'s in U.S. prisons! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at http://www.onelist.com and select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left.
