Paid witnesses and informants: the bargains criminal cases are built on
Roger Reaves refused to inform while Barry Seal cooperated and was murdered, Chris Tarbell turned the hacker Sabu into an FBI asset, and Josh Dubin says the Ohio 4 were convicted on the word of a paid witness. Seen together, these stories show how heavily investigations rely on cooperation deals and what can go wrong for both the accused and the informant.
Much of criminal justice runs on a trade: information in exchange for money, leniency or freedom. A deal can deliver what no other method can, and the same incentive that makes someone talk can make them lie or get them killed. When it goes wrong, it is very hard to undo. Four conversations show the trade from every seat at the table.
Roger Reaves, a smuggler who flew drugs for a Colombian cartel, refused the deal. His pilot Barry Seal cooperated after being caught, then met Reaves in tears, said he could not do three life sentences, and told him to testify too or face life in prison. Reaves could not testify against people who had dealt honestly with him. He warned Seal the cartel would kill him and fled abroad. Weeks later he learned Seal had been killed. Both outcomes were costly, since Reaves spent 33 years behind bars in all.
Chris Tarbell, a former FBI cybercrime agent, tells it from the side that makes the offer. Another informant pointed him to a hacker known as Sabu, who was facing up to 125 years and chose to cooperate. He worked with Tarbell for nine months and later walked free. Tarbell says sitting with him taught him that criminals are human beings. His approach is "be compassionate, be human", and the two became close friends. Tarbell also paid a price: his family was threatened and moved to a safe house.
Josh Dubin, a civil rights attorney, describes four men convicted of murder in Ohio on the word of one witness. A reward was offered in a cold case. A known informant came in the next day, then returned with his son, who said he had seen the murder and asked about the reward money. The son's story changed, there was no forensic evidence, and a federal agency had stopped using him for taking money for false information. He later said he made it up for money. At a hearing he was warned of perjury, was refused immunity, and declined to testify. Dubin's summary is "it's really easy to put someone in jail, real easy, real difficult to get them out."
J.D. Tomlinson, the former county prosecutor, reviewed the record looking for any evidence of guilt and says he never found it. He supported new trials, and his successor withdrew that support. The current prosecutor's reasoning is not presented.
They agree that the pressure on a person deciding whether to talk is enormous and that insiders supply what nothing else can. They disagree about whether informing is betrayal or a fresh start, and about the fix. The dividing line the accounts suggest is whether a cooperator's story is checked against something independent.
What to do with it: when a case rests on one witness, ask what that witness was offered. Look for independent corroboration, such as physical evidence and whether the scene matches the story. Treat a changing story as a warning. Take other agencies' warnings seriously. Vote in local elections for prosecutor. Remember that an informant is a person at risk. Be willing to say you were wrong.