When police officers arrest people, they are generally required to – to a very minimal degree – educate those individuals about their rights. If any questioning occurs while an individual is in state custody, the individual should receive the Miranda warning beforehand.
The Miranda warning advises an individual of their right to remain silent and their right to have legal representation when facing criminal charges. Many criminal defendants understand that they need to use the right to remain silent while interacting with police officers. However, they may still say things while in state custody that could increase their chances of a criminal conviction later.
People frequently end up embroiled in conversations with others facing criminal prosecution as a way to make time pass while in custody. Those interactions might result in the state making the other party a jailhouse informant.
Jailhouse informants are unreliable
When the state does not have enough evidence to directly tie an individual to criminal activity, police officers and prosecutors may look for any evidence they can find. Statements made by others in custody at the same time as the defendant can seem like valuable evidence. Other people in state custody may have overheard one person confessing or providing details about the alleged crime.
However, jailhouse informants are not necessarily reliable sources of information. They directly benefit from becoming jailhouse informants in many cases. In exchange for testifying about what someone allegedly said while in state custody, jailhouse informants may receive more lenient treatment from the state. They might be able to negotiate a plea to a lesser charge or may be able to limit the penalties imposed for their pending charges.
They therefore have an incentive to provide the state with information it can use to convict another person. Jailhouse informants might exaggerate the statements made by another person. In some cases, they may outright fabricate information.
The right to remain silent protects people not just from coercive interrogation tactics but also from scenarios in which the statements made to outside parties could strengthen the state’s case. A criminal defense strategy might include attempts to raise questions about the veracity of an informant’s statements. Of course, it is usually preferable to avoid giving the state compelling evidence instead of finding ways to undermine that evidence later.
Individuals who know and assert their rights may have multiple options available when developing a criminal defense strategy. Those who avoid saying things that implicate themselves while in state custody may have less evidence to counter if they take their charges to trial.
