DOJ Settles With Orange County Over Use of “Jailhouse Snitches”
by Chuck Sharman
In an agreement finalized with the federal Department of Justice (DOJ) on January 14, 2025, District Attorney Todd Spitzer (R) of California’s Orange County committed to a series of reforms in the use of “jailhouse snitches.” The DOJ conducted a lengthy investigation beginning in 2016, which culminated in a scathing 2022 report.
The report slammed the office of the Orange County District Attorney (OCDA) for engaging in a “pattern and practice” of violating the Sixth Amendment rights of criminal suspects detained in County jails with the use of criminal informants (CIs). The DOJ accused the OCDA of using CIs to obtain “incriminating statements from defendants in homicide and gang-related prosecutions.”
As PLN reported, CIs were placed with suspects in the jail’s Special Handling Unit (SHU), where they were encouraged to cozy up to suspects without identifying their connection to OCDA, in order to obtain evidence for use in prosecuting them. That was a clear violation of Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964), which held that such evidence is inadmissible unless the defendant has the opportunity to have counsel present when he gives it. The CIs were then rewarded with lenient plea bargains that were never disclosed to the trial court or the defense, in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). [See: PLN, Feb. 2023, p.1.]
Spitzer was not the D.A. from 2007 to 2016, when the violations took place that the DOJ reported; that was former D.A. Tony Rackauckas (R). The defining case of his eight terms in office was undone when he sought a capital murder conviction based on evidence of intent that had been gleaned in the SHU from confessed Seal Beach serial killer Scott Dekraai. Though the crime was the worst mass killing in County history, the D.A. was forced to settle for a life sentence for Dekraai in 2017, after it came to light that intent evidence came from a CI.
The agreement with DOJ obligates the OCDA to make permanent a series of policy changes regarding CIs that Spitzer introduced upon taking office. Those included disclosure when a CI is used to obtain evidence and any plea deals offered in exchange for the snitching. The OCDA must also maintain up-to-date information on the use of any CI in the Orange County Index of Confidential Sources (OCICS). A Cooperating Informant Review Committee (CIRC), consisting of the D.A., OCDA and the Director of OCICS, must also approve requests for use of any CI, unless the prosecutor notifies the court and the defendant that evidence obtained from a CI will not be used in a prosecution.
In addition, the agreement memorializes a separate memorandum of understanding between OCDA and the County Sheriff’s Department (OCSD), requiring the two agencies to coordinate the use and identification of CIs in prosecutions. The OCDA must also adopt materials and procedures to provide training in the elements of the agreement to relevant personnel. It must further undertake a historical review of prosecutions to determine any that relied on use of CI testimony and notify the DOJ. Requirements for periodic audits and compliance review, including the hiring of a Compliance Administrator, were included in the agreement, as well. See: Agreement for the Sustainability of Custodial Informant Reforms, DOJ and OCDA (2025).
Additional source: New York Times
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login