Service & Results.

nyc criminal lawyers over 30 years of experienceWe Know How To Win Cases

Spodek Law Group handles tough cases
nationwide, that demand excellence.

Get Free Consultation

Faced 5+ Years in Prison

People Vs Joseph Amico

Covered by NYDaily News. Las Vegas man accused of threatening a prominent attorney and making vile remarks.

Faced 10+ Years in Prison

People Vs. Anna Sorokin

Covered by New York Times, and other outlets. Fake heiress accused of conning the city’s wealthy, and has an HBO special being made about her.

Faced 3+ Years in Prison

People Vs. Genevieve Sabourin

Accused of stalking Alec Baldwin. The case garnered nationwide attention, with USAToday, NYPost, and other media outlets following it closely.

Faced Potential Charges

Ghislaine Maxwell Juror

Juror who prompted calls for new Ghislaine Maxwell trial turns to lawyer who defended Anna Sorokin.

Why Choose Us

Clients can use our portal to track the status of their case, stay in touch with us, upload documents, and more.

Regardless of the type of situation you're facing, our attorneys are here to help you get quality representation.

We can setup consultations in person, over Zoom, or over the phone to help you. Bottom line, we're here to help you win your case.

Law in the Media

View All

Meet Todd Spodek


The Spodek Law Group understands how delicate high-profile cases can be, and has a strong track record of getting positive outcomes. Our lawyers service a clientele that is nationwide. With offices in both LA and NYC, and cases all across the country - Spodek Law Group is a top tier law firm.

Todd Spodek is a second generation attorney with immense experience. He has many years of experience handling 100’s of tough and hard to win trials. He’s been featured on major news outlets, such as New York Post, Newsweek, Fox 5 New York, South China Morning Post, Insider.com, and many others.

In 2022, Netflix released a series about one of Todd’s clients: Anna Delvey/Anna Sorokin.

Why Clients Choose Spodek Law Group

The reason is simple: clients want white glove service, and lawyers who can win. Every single client who works with the Spodek Law Group is aware that the attorney they hire could drastically change the outcome of their case. Hiring the Spodek Law Group means you’re taking your future seriously. Our lawyers handle cases nationwide, ranging from NYC to LA. Our philosophy is fair and simple: our nyc criminal lawyers only take on clients who we know will benefit from our services.

We’re selective about the clients we work with, and only take on cases we know align with our experience – and where we can make a difference. This is different from other law firms who are not invested in your success nor care about your outcome.

If you have a legal issue, call us for a consultation.
We are available 24/7, to help you with any – and all, challenges you face.

How Do Federal Defense Lawyers Challenge Evidence from Informants?

By Spodek Law Group | October 19, 2023
(Last Updated On: October 20, 2023)

Last Updated on: 20th October 2023, 11:40 am

How Do Federal Defense Lawyers Challenge Evidence from Informants?

Informants play a crucial role in many federal criminal investigations and prosecutions. They provide inside information and testimony that can help build strong cases against defendants. However, evidence from informants also raises many challenges for federal defense lawyers seeking to protect their clients’ rights. This article will examine common strategies federal defense attorneys use to challenge informant evidence and testimony.

Understanding Informants in Federal Cases

Informants go by many names – confidential informants (CIs), cooperating witnesses, snitches, rats. They are criminals who agree to provide information to law enforcement in exchange for leniency in their own cases. This leniency often comes in the form of reduced charges or sentences.

The Department of Justice and FBI have guidelines regulating the use of informants. However, informants are still considered a high-risk, high-reward tactic. They provide inside information unavailable to police through normal investigative work. But they also have strong incentives to provide false or embellished information to better their own situations.

Federal cases involving drugs, organized crime, terrorism, and corruption frequently rely on informants. But this evidence poses many challenges for defense lawyers seeking to protect their clients’ constitutional rights.

Discrediting Informants through Discovery

One of the main strategies federal defense attorneys use is demanding discovery about the informant and their background.

The Supreme Court has ruled prosecutors must disclose any evidence that could impeach a government witness, including informants. This includes:

  • Criminal history: Any crimes they have committed or leniency received in prior cases. This reveals motivation to lie and patterns of deception.
  • Compensation: Any payments, promises of leniency, or other benefits offered in exchange for cooperation. This reveals incentives to fabricate information.
  • Personnel files: Any misconduct or dishonesty noted in the informant’s employment records if they worked as a law enforcement agent.
  • Mental health issues: Any psychological conditions that could impact perception or memory.
  • Substance abuse: Any history of drug or alcohol abuse that could cloud their judgment.
  • Pre-trial statements: Any inconsistent statements from prior interviews or testimony in related cases.
  • Handler history: Any evidence their handling agents have engaged in misconduct with other informants.

Federal defense lawyers thoroughly review all such discovery and investigate informants’ backgrounds themselves to build an impeachment case.

Exposing Informants through Cross-Examination

In addition to impeaching informants through discovery, federal defense lawyers also aim to expose unreliability and ulterior motives during cross-examination at trial.

They may question informants about:

  • Criminal incentives: The specific benefits they received in exchange for cooperating, including any promises of cash, dropped charges, or reduced sentences.
  • Lies and inconsistencies: Any provable lies they have told in the past, any inconsistent statements in the current case, and any testimony that contradicts the evidence.
  • Motive to fabricate: Personal reasons the informant would want to falsely implicate the defendant, such as revenge or protecting someone else.
  • Police pressure: Whether police pressured the informant to implicate the defendant or “remember” details a certain way.
  • Mental competence: Any mental health conditions or addictions that could impact perception, memory, judgment, and reliability.
  • Contamination: Whether informants gleaned case details from media reports or officers that improperly influenced their testimony.

Skilled cross-examination can demonstrate informants are unreliable witnesses who will say anything to help themselves. But this requires extensive preparation by the defense attorney to uncover impeaching evidence.

Seeking Exclusion of Informant Testimony

In some cases, federal defense attorneys may seek to exclude informant testimony altogether by filing a motion with the court. Possible grounds for exclusion include:


If the defense can show the informant’s testimony is completely unreliable – for example, due to mental illness, intoxication, or clear evidence of fabrication – they can argue it would violate the defendant’s due process rights to allow the jury to hear it.

Undue Prejudice

If the informant’s testimony would be highly prejudicial with little probative value – for example, baseless claims that unfairly bias the jury – the defense can seek exclusion arguing it would violate the right to a fair trial.

Privilege Violations

If informants obtained information by violating a privilege – for example, spying on attorney-client conversations – those statements may be excluded as confidential communications.

Miranda Violations

If informants interrogated targets without reading Miranda rights, their testimony about resulting statements may be excluded as unconstitutional coercion.


If informants pressured or induced targets into committing crimes they were not predisposed to, the defense can argue they were entrapped and any resulting evidence should be excluded.

While these motions are challenging, sometimes exclusion provides the only chance for a fair trial untainted by unreliable or illegal informant evidence.

Attacking Informant Credibility in Opening and Closing Arguments

In both opening statements and closing arguments, federal defense lawyers emphasize informant credibility problems revealed through discovery and cross-examination.

They may rehash lies on the stand, ulterior motives, police pressure, mental issues, criminal records, and other impeachment evidence. They argue informants cannot be trusted or believed. This framing can leave jurors highly skeptical of informant testimony.

Requesting Cautionary Jury Instructions

Federal defense attorneys often request jury instructions warning jurors to view informant testimony with caution and great care. Common instructions include:

  • Informants may have incentives to lie based on promises of leniency. Their testimony should be viewed with skepticism and weighed with great care.
  • The extent to which informant testimony may have been influenced by police pressure or self-interest to lie must be considered.
  • Testimony from informants admitting their own crimes should be considered with greater caution than ordinary witnesses.
  • Informants with mental illnesses or addictions may have impaired abilities to perceive, remember, and recount events. Their testimony should be considered with great care.

These instructions remind jurors of credibility concerns and help neutralize the impact of informant testimony.

Leveraging Post-Conviction Remedies

If all else fails and the defendant is convicted based on informant evidence, federal defense lawyers can still leverage post-conviction remedies to challenge the conviction.

Possible tactics include:

  • Appeals: Arguing the conviction should be overturned because informant evidence was unreliable, improperly admitted, or violated due process.
  • Habeas corpus petitions: Claiming newly discovered impeachment evidence proves informant testimony was false and conviction should be vacated.
  • Actual innocence claims: Asserting there is clear evidence the defendant was wrongfully convicted based on fabricated informant testimony.

While challenging convictions post-trial is difficult, it remains an option if prosecutors fail to disclose key impeachment evidence that is later uncovered. Vigorous defense and scrutiny of informants at all stages is thus critical.


Informants are a complex facet of federal criminal cases. Their evidence can be crucial in obtaining convictions, but also raises significant reliability concerns. Through demanding discovery, rigorous cross-examination, exclusion motions, framing arguments, cautionary instructions, and post-conviction challenges, federal defense lawyers can mitigate the risks informants pose to fair trials and just outcomes for their clients. But defending against problematic informant testimony requires extensive preparation, investigation, and dedication from the defense attorney.

Free Consultation


I was searching for a law firm with some power to help me deal with a warrant in New York . After 6 days I decided to go with Spodek Law Group. It helped that This law firm is well respected by not only the top law firms in New York , but the DA , Judge as well. I...

~Fonder Brandon

5 Stars
It was my good fortune to retain Spodek Law Group for representation for my legal needs. From the beginning, communication was prompt and thorough. Todd, Kenneth and Alex were the first people I worked with and they all made me, and my company Qumana skincare feel comfortable and confident that the team was going to work hard for me. Everything...

~A G

5 Stars
After meeting with several law firms, I chose the Spodek Law Group not only for their professionalism and experience, but for the personal attention given to me right from the initial consultation. It is important to recognize how crucial having the right legal team is when faced with potentially life altering events that impact families and the lives of loved...

~George Cherubini

Spodek Law Group

White Glove Service

We Provide Superior Service, Excellent Results, At A Level Superior To Other Criminal Defense Law Firms. Regardless Of Where Your Case Is, Nationwide, We Can Help You.
View More

Request Free Consultation

Please fill out the form below to receive a free consultation, we will respond to
your inquiry within 24-hours guaranteed.


85 Broad St 30th Floor, New York, NY 10004


get directions

Los Angeles

611 S Catalina St Suite 222, Los Angeles, CA 90005


get directions


35-37 36th St, 2nd Floor Astoria, NY 11106


get directions


195 Montague St., 14th Floor, Brooklyn, NY 11201


get directions
Call Now!