Snitch Undermined Nets Reversal

By: Monte E. Hester; Dec. 2001

     Wayne Fricke and I were trial attorneys for a Mr. Bishop, who unfortunately was convicted in federal court of a 1999 conspiracy and a count of establishing a methamphetamine manufacturing operation.

     At trial we cross-examined the two witnesses who were cooperating with the government.  One of the witnesses was a co-defendant.  The other witness was not indicted, but cooperative.  As the Ninth Circuit Panel found, we were able to seriously undermine these witnesses' credibility.  U.S. v. Bishop, No. 00-3004 (9th Cir. Sept. 6, 2001).

                The impact upon the witnesses' credibility became very important.  The trial judge had admitted drug evidence seized during a 1998 stop by Oregon police.  This stop was made because there was no front license plate on the vehicle Mr. Bishop was driving.  During the stop, and while leaning into the vehicle to check the identification of a passenger, the officer observed evidence relating to methamphetamine manufacturing.  Mr. Bishop refused permission to search the vehicle but the officer searched the car anyway and found further evidence relating to meth manufacturing. 

     The appellate court agreed with the position we took at trial that this stop and search was improper and that the evidence should have been suppressed.

     The appellate court refused to accept the government's position that the error was harmless because the Oregon evidence provided substantial corroboration as to the government's cooperating witnesses who testified that Mr. Bishop was involved in meth manufacturing.  The court's obvious rationale is, that without the Oregon corroboration the jury would not have accepted the cooperating witnesses' testimony as credible and therefore the government's case may in fact have failed.

     Thus, the impact of the case is to make a record and preserve the issues for appeal.  When the primary witnesses are less than credible, corroborating evidence, or lack thereof, can make the difference between the verdict being reversed or affirmed on appeal.