What's this all about,

Take a look at Jesse Coggins Affidavit and Motion to show cause, both documents are dated October 5, 1992. Ms. Mavers first divorce takes place on October 5,6 and 7 of 1992 and she decides to enforce the restraining order violation on the first day of her divorce.


During the divorce the restraining order violation is proved to be false. Take a look at the Robert Brasch Letter to District Attorney Paul Burgett dated October 22, 1992. The divorce was heard by Judge Hugh C. Downer, Ms. Maver was represented by Jeremiah Scannell and her husband was represented by Robert Brasch.


Now let's take a look at RO proceedings and Restraining Order, these documents are dated October 19, 1992. Restraining Order is signed by Judge Robert F. Walberg who heard the case and RO proceedings show the restraining order was dismissed.


Now let's take another look at the Robert Brasch Letter, This letter is dated three day's after the RO was dismissed. Mr. Brasch states Carla Johnson testified in both trials and as the testimony clearly revealed Ms. Maver clearly lied under oath in two separate trials before Judge Hugh C. Downer and Judge Robert F. Walberg.


What Mr. Brasch did not say in the letter, he put in the divorce file.One statement he makes is that after the Restraining order, Ms. Maver was begging and pleading in a degrading manner with the DA to drop all charges.


This scene was witnessed not only by the people present at the trial but also spilled out into the hall and was witnessed by court personnel and people attending court that day.


This information would have been valuable for defense attorneys however someone removed the Robert Brasch letter from the divorce file. It also appears that the same person or person's made the RO appear to have been dismissed.


Now let's take a look at Audio Record, these two documents show the time reading's of Jake's Motion for a new attorney. As you can see the time reading's are different. Mr. Coggin's was the attorney we were trying to have dismissed and some of his statements were so absurd that someone has removed them.


Fran Hooten was the court reporter on that day and her time reading is correct. The second time recording is false and when reviewing the written transcripts it is clear that some of Mr. Coggin's absurd statements have been removed and replaced with statements he made in other parts of the trial. That is why the second time reading is longer than the first.


We have worked on this case for six years and talked to a lot of attorney's. We even hired an attorney who buried all references to Ms. Maver in Jake's appeal. Now we are told that since there is no mention of Ms. Maver in that appeal it can't be brought up in the appeals that follow.


We have filed a Motion for Remand and that was denied. In the Mike Nifong case the defendants were able to afford excellent attorney's and Mr. Nifong was found guilty of prosecutorial misconduct. It should be remembered that the woman who cried rape was diagnosed Bi-Polar and had a history of drug and alcohol abuse.


We have applied for a permit to accept donations for Jake's appeal and it has been granted, We maintain here at scint-stinks.com that Jake was guilty of only one charge although she did encourge him to commit the offense.



Note: see entrapment 1 and Affidvitt to PI and look at the dates,with that information, 3 months after jake's conviction, we asked for a retrial and were told we had received, Constitutionally Ineffective Counsel.



Although at this point it appears Jake will carry six felonies for the rest of his life, He still has time to file a "1983" CIVIL RIGHTS CLAIM. As long as prosecutors can bury the evidence against their informants, innocent people will continue to pay the price.


Jake's offense's were for marijuana charges and had nothing to do with meth. In the old day's sting operations would simply involve people who law enforcement deemed guilty of one offense or another and then round them up. We regret posting this information however the State of Oregon has left us no choice.


Ms. Maver was wearing a body wire and SCINT remained close to her during her drug buy's in order to hear and record the conversations, yet some people who have never been arrested, had dealing with Ms. Maver and were not arrested during the sting and have not been arrested to date.


The true purpose of this web-site will become clear after the legal issues. Sister site coming soon !


How Snitches Contribute to Wrongful Convictions

ALEXANDRA NATAPOFF
Loyola Law School Los Angeles


There is increasing evidence that our criminal system often convicts the innocent. Criminal informants, or "snitches," play a prominent role in this wrongful conviction phenomenon.

The criminal system, however, is heavily dependent on snitches, particularly in connection with the investigation and prosecution of drug offenses, and police and prosecutors are often not well-positioned to know when their informants are lying.

This Comment, which was prepared in connection with the ACLU of Northern California's conference on wrongful convictions, describes the institutional relationships between snitches, police, and prosecutors that makes snitch falsehoods so pervasive and difficult to discern with the traditional tools of the adversarial process.

It offers a litigation suggestion for providing a judicial check on the use of unreliable informant witnesses, namely, a Daubert-style pre-trial reliability hearing. The Appendix provides a sample motion requesting and justifying such a hearing.




ALEXANDRA NATAPOFF
Loyola Law School Los Angeles
University of Cincinnati Law Review, Vol. 73, 2004

Abstract:

The use of criminal informants in the U.S. justice system has become a flourishing socio-legal institution. Every year, tens of thousands of criminal suspects, many of them drug offenders concentrated in inner-city neighborhoods, informally negotiate away liability in exchange for promised cooperation, while law enforcement at the local, state and federal levels rely on ever greater numbers of criminal actors in making basic decisions about investigations and prosecutions.

While this marriage of convenience is fraught with peril, it is nearly devoid of judicial or public scrutiny as to the propriety, fairness, or utility of the deals being struck. At the same time, it is a quintessential expression of some of the most contentious characteristics of the modern criminal system: law enforcement discretion, secrecy, and the increasing informality of the adjudication process.

The informant institution is also an under-appreciated social force in low-income, high-crime, urban communities in which a high percentage of residents - as many as fifty percent of African American males in some cities - are in contact with the criminal justice system and therefore potentially under pressure to snitch.

By relying heavily on snitching, particularly in drug-related cases, law enforcement officials create large numbers of informants who remain at large in the community, engaging in criminal activities while under pressure to provide information about others. These snitches are a communal liability: they increase crime and threaten social organization, interpersonal relationships, and socio-legal norms in their home communities, even as they are tolerated or under-punished by law enforcement because they are useful.

This Article conceptualizes the informant institution as an engine of the modern criminal system, both in its operation and its expressive value. Informing shapes the practice of plea bargaining, it heavily influences prosecutorial discretion, and is a major symptom of the increasingly administrative, non-public, non-adversarial nature of the U.S. justice system.

For all these reasons, the informant institution has a potentially significant normative impact on systemic legal values; the expressive value of the widespread practice of rewarding criminals even as they continue to commit crimes warrants careful scrutiny.

The Article also hypothesizes the harms imposed by the informant institution on socially disadvantaged, high-crime communities in which snitching is common.

These harms may include increased crime, the erosion of trust in interpersonal, familial and community relationships and other psychological damage created by pervasive informing, the communal loss of faith in the state, and the undermining of law-abiding norms flowing from law enforcement's rewarding of and complicity in snitch wrongdoing.

Because what ails the informant institution is centrally a function of the increasingly secretive discretionary exercise of criminal law enforcement authority, the Article proposes reforms primarily of the sunshine variety.

The reforms aim to reduce the secretiveness and lack of accountability surrounding the informal adjudication of informant liability, and to increase legislative control over and public awareness of this quintessentially secretive executive practice.


DRCNet on the main menu, opposes the prison-building frenzy and supports rational policies consistent with the principles of peace, justice, freedom, compassion and truth. Each of these has been compromised in the name of the Drug War.


LEAP also on main menu, to Unveil Billboard in Omaha, Nebraska

Omaha, NE and Medford, MA- On July 15, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition will unveil our first-ever ad campaign, which will kick off with a LEAP billboard in Omaha, Nebraska. With this effort, LEAP is looking to prove and increase awareness of the failures of prohibition.