Snitch!

One of the issues that arose in the Jon Massey Case was the "irregularities" that occurred at the first Grand Jury. Something that seems fairly small and inconsequential, but actually has HUGE implications was the ADA "outing a snitch".

Jon tried to call a witness who was a Confidential Registered Informant (CRI) and who had information about Ruby's premeditation and exculpatory evidence (exculpatory evidence is evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal trial that exonerates or tends to exonerate the defendant of guilt. It is the opposite of inculpatory evidence, which tends to prove guilt). 

This CRI had a registration number and a specific handler within local law enforcement. This CRI had been instrumental in a number of larger weapons and drugs busts, involving individuals who were known for violence. The identity of this CRI was known to the DA's office, as they had utilized the CRI in Grand Jury testimony for securing sealed indictments for a number of criminal offenses.

The United States Attorney General's Office has very clear and specific guidelines that dictate the use of Confidential Registered Informants - they are the "gold standard" that are to be followed by all law enforcement agencies and prosecutor's offices (click here).

Of particular note is the following section:

2. The Chief Federal Prosecutor and his or her designee are required to maintain as confidential the identity of any CI and the information the CI has provided, unless obligated to disclose it by law or Court order. If a JLEA provides the Chief Federal Prosecutor or his or her designee with written material containing such information:

a. Such individual is obligated to keep it confidential by placing it into a locked file cabinet when not in his or her direct care and custody;

b. Access to the information shall be restricted to the Chief Federal Prosecutor or his or her designee and personnel deemed necessary to carry out the official duties related to the case;

c. The Chief Federal Prosecutor or his or her designee is responsible for assuring that each person permitted access to the information is made aware of the need to preserve the security and confidentiality of the information, as provided in this policy;

d. Prior to disclosure of the information to defense counsel or in open Court, the Chief Federal Prosecutor or his or her designee must give the JLEA an opportunity to discuss such disclosure and must comply with any other applicable provision of 28 C.F.R. §§ 16.21-16.29; and

e. At the conclusion of a case or investigation, all written materials containing the information that have not been disclosed shall be forwarded to the JLEA that provided them.(3)

Because the federal guidelines are those that are to be followed by ALL law enforcement entities as well as ALL prosecutors, the actions of the ADA in this case violated Federal Law. Since the judge allowed this to continue with no repercussions, both are complicit.

This irregularity, as well as the others, was brought to the judge's attention immediately and he FAILED TO ACT. Under normal circumstances, the indictment would be thrown out and resubmitted to a new Grand Jury, as happened in a neighboring county less than a year after Jon Massey's death. (Click here for details.)

Additionally at fault is the prosecutor in the District Attorney's office who actually dealt directly with the CRI. - as the ADA who was prosecuting Jon Massey had never been involved directly with cases involving the CRI. Under the above guidelines, this ADA was under an obligation to keep the identity of the CRI secure, and that would include from other members of the DA's office under section 2.b. So there is plenty of blame to spread around. (It is interesting that the ADA in question has been involved and directly implicated in aiding a cover up in a matter involving the local Sheriff's department. Click here for details.)

"Outing a snitch" is considered an extremely serious offense, as it places the life and safety of the CRI in jeopardy, as well as endangering the safety of the CRI's family and friends. The CRI, upon learning of what had happened in front of 20 people, had filed a notice of claim against the County and the DA's office, as well as the ADA. Most lawsuits of this nature have won million dollar settlements.

But even more serious was the follow-up implication that has far wider reaching implications. The actions of the ADA indicate that any and all testimony of this CRI is untruthful in the eyes of the DA's office. 

That would indicated that any and all cases that relied on the testimony of and evidence produced by this CRI were "fruit of the poisonous tree". They can't have it both ways - either the CRI was a reliable witness or wasn't. 

Once again, there is documentation that the DA's office and the judge were working far too hard to ensure that there was a case against a man who had NO criminal record. Not only was there no criminal record, there were no other "victims" that came forward as normally happens. Quite to the contrary, the friends of Ruby rallied to the side of Jon and reported that the allegations were premeditated.

The only probable cause in this case was that the county was using any and every dirty trick they could to avoid lawsuits by Jon's partner and the CRI.

Read for yourself, learn the tools that are being used in our court system every day to PREVENT justice from being served.

It is time to stand up and speak out!