Assessing the Effectiveness of Organized Crime Control Strategies ...

Assessing the Effectiveness of Organized Crime Control Strategies:
A Review of the Literature
who are afraid because they have not been protected by anonymity may demonstrate more bias
in their judgment.
This review has not uncovered any empirical evidence comparing the decisions rendered by
anonymous versus other juries in similar OC cases. A study could evaluate whether jury
anonymity affects conviction rates or increases the likelihood of successful appeals.
4.9 Witness Immunity
In the United States’ federal system and in many states, the court or prosecutor may grant
immunity to reluctant witnesses in exchange for their testimony (Abadinsky, 2003). There are
two types of immunity:
1. Transactional immunity, which provides blanket protection from prosecution for crimes
about which an individual is required to testify; and
2. Use immunity, which prohibits the use of information provided by a person from being
used against that person.
There are risks to granting immunity. As these witnesses will usually be hostile, their examiners
cannot be sure in advance of the precise value of the withheld testimony (King, 1963). Also,
prior to the testimony, there is no way of knowing what crimes are likely to be exonerated.
Furthermore, under transactional immunity, there are risks of granting an “immunity bath”,
whereby a witness mentions a wide range of crimes he has engaged in knowing that he is
immunized from prosecution for any crime he refers to while under oath (Kenney and
Finckenauer, 1995:328). Moreover, there may be a perception that immunized testimony is
unreliable, because it has been purchased (Rhodes, 1984: 192). Immunity has also been
criticized on the grounds that it may be granted by prosecutors as a mere “fishing expedition” to
obtain information without any specific suspects or crimes in mind (Albanese, 1996: 192). In
addition, immunized witnesses can still have independently derived evidence used against them
and are not immune from civil suits initiated by injured parties.
On the positive side, grants of immunity are said to have a favourable impact on a jury, as the
testimony is viewed as more credible. The witness, after all, has little reason to lie and faces
perjury proceedings if he does. Perjury proceedings are very rare, however, as they occur just
once in every 10,000 grants of immunity (President’s Commission on Organized Crime, 1986).
Overall, Rhodes (1984) asserts that the prosecutor’s power to grant immunity is vital in dealing
with OC. In prosecuting low-visibility conspiratorial crimes, he argues that there are few
alternatives to obtaining the testimony of one of the conspirators. One illustration of the value of
information obtained from informants is the case of Tommaso Buscetta, formerly a member of
the Sicilian Mafia. His testimony in Palermo, Sicily and New York City helped convict close to
five hundred members of the Sicilian and New York La Cosa Nostra (Kenney and Finckenauer,
1995).
36 | Research and Statistics Division / Department of Justice Canada