Jose Uribe lasted only two days in the Los Angeles County jail before the Mexican Mafia ordered him murdered for being a rata, a snitch. Three witnesses who identified the alleged killers will also be killed, prosecutors insist, if the prison gang learns their names.
Thus far--through the preliminary proceedings of two murder cases--the witnesses' identities have been kept confidential by two courts, which have declared that secrecy is necessary because the Mexican Mafia is infamous for murdering informants.
Now, after an unusually long, 2 1/2-year review, the California Supreme Court is about to decide whether the suspects, one of whom faces the death penalty if convicted, will ever get a chance to learn the names of their accusers.
Defense attorneys, citing the U.S. Constitution, say that anonymous witnesses do not belong in criminal courtrooms, particularly in a trial where the entire case rests on the witnesses' credibility.
Prosecutors counter that revealing the witnesses' names would be tantamount to a death sentence--for the witnesses.
Could the prosecution live with a rule that says the witnesses' names must be disclosed to the defense at least 24 hours before trial? asked California Supreme Court Justice Joyce Kennard during the court's long-awaited hearing on the case last month.
"The prosecution can live with it," replied Los Angeles Deputy Dist. Atty. Brentford J. Ferreira. "It is the witnesses who cannot."
The case, which the court appears to be struggling with, presents a wrenching dilemma over the need to protect witnesses while ensuring that defendants receive a fair trial. Prosecutors contend that many murderers are not convicted because witnesses are too fearful to come forward.
But the U.S. Constitution gives criminal defendants the right to confront their accusers. Without the names of prosecution witnesses, defense lawyers cannot investigate their backgrounds.
Do they have motives to lie? Do they have grudges against the defendants? Have they offered testimony in other cases?
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the right to confront hostile witnesses is not absolute.
Children testifying against sexual abusers have been allowed to testify outside the presence of the defendants. Peripheral witnesses have been given anonymity, and the defense has been denied the addresses of some threatened witnesses.
