link
In three current high-profile criminal cases, federal prosecutors have asked that the identities of Israeli government witnesses be withheld from
defendants and their attorneys — a move some legal scholars see as a highly unusual end run around the 6th Amendment.
Defense attorneys in all three cases have argued, with mixed results, that allowing U.S. prosecutors to keep the witnesses' identities secret — as
demanded by Israel to protect its agents — violates their clients' constitutional right to confront their accusers.
This is outrageous! I appreciate the need for Israeli agents to remain anonymous, but if that need is so pressing, they should stay home and let the
trials run their respective courses based on the merit of the other evidence (presuming there is any). We simply can't allow secret witnesses in
this country, or before you know it we'll have them coming out of our ears, and people will be getting locked up for the most heinous of crimes
thanks to testimony coming from a blue dot or a muffled voice emnating from a paper bag.
Again, I appreciate the needs of Israel to keep their undercover/intelligence operatives unknown and safe, and to ensure they can keep doing their
job. But in that case, they must not be able to testify!
When an undercover cop has to testify, he testifies! If the risk to his health or his assignment is too great, he doesn't tesitfy! Simple.
If the accused has no chance to confront his accuser, and the defense has no way to research the person making the statement, then they have lost a
crucial defense against malicious, baseless prosecution by the government and its host of secret sources. It's insane, that we would even think of
allowing this.
If the only evidence holding up a prosecutor's case is secret testimony from a secret witness, the case ought to be dismissed before people have even
taken their seats. And if there's more to the case than just secret testimony, if there's more to the prosecutor's argument than an anonymous
figure with ostensible credibility, then the omission of the testimony should have no massive effect on the case!
It happens very, very rarely, but the SCOTUS actually shares my view on this issue.
In a unanimous opinion written by the one of the court's most consistently conservative voices, Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court ruled that
defendants have a right to know their accusers and challenge the reliability of their statements, no matter their credentials.
"Dispensing with confrontation because testimony is obviously reliable is akin to dispensing with jury trial because a defendant is obviously
guilty," Scalia wrote. "This is not what the 6th Amendment prescribes."
Once more for clarity, I'm not suggesting that intelligence operatives or undercover agents ought to be put in danger by testifying in open court, if
that's not in their (government's) best interest. But neither am I going to stand for convictions based on the testimony of invisible men! It's
ludicrous!