if a Family member decides to co operate with the government and "rat" on his fellow mafiosi, does he automatically avoid a jail sentence? if he was ordered to kill somebody and admits it, but states he was ordered to, would this make him evade a sentence?

thanks for any help!
mick

Good question, Mick! It depends on the quality of the info the squealer is ready to trade, and what it's worth to prosecutors. If he has solid, inside, indisputable info that will assure that prosecutors can nail a Mob bigshot that they're anxious to put away--and if prosecutors think he'll make a credible witness in a trial--they'll offer him "immunity to testify." In America, that means that if he agrees to waive his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and answer all questions under oath truthfully, he won't be prosecuted for any crimes he admits to. And, as long as the squealer didn't commit a capital offense, the authorities will probably put him in the Witness Protection Program; or if he did kill (as did Sammy The Bull Gravano), they'll give him a light sentence in a protected part of a prison and then put him in the program.
But if the guy doesn't have really good info to trade, or if the guys he's squealing on aren't bigshots, he probably won't get a deal. They'll probably offer him a standard deal: a lighter sentence in exchange for a guilty plea, and no Witness Protection Program.

as always, i can rely on the big man to teach me lessons on the mafia! Thanks Turnball. i have no idea how the courts work in england never mind the US--such as the Fifth Amendment and such--but your answer offers everything i needed to know on the subject! does this apply to such trials in the 30s. the truth is i'm writing a book on this subject but it's set on the 1930s and was wondering if a situation like Gravano's was possible?

mick

I can't tell you exactly when it was started--probably in the late 60's or early 70's--but the Witness Protection Program was definitely not around in the 1930's.

Yeah, we don't have the 5th here. Just the right to remain silent but anything we do say may be used as evidence in a court of law. Best thing to say upon being arrested and read your rights:

"please stop hitting me officer."

The situations Turnbull explained are exactly the consequences a UK equivalent would face. Going back to the 1930's makes it much more difficult for me to answer though. Maybe you could give us a little backround info on your book, especially where it's based. US, UK?

US, (fictional city) and the story starts with a guy wanting to testify against his whole Family. he has hard evidence and is willing to co operate fully. but he won't say a thing until he is guaranteed immunity. does this mean i've got to either change the era or the whole story?

thanks for any help!

mick

Change the era, then u dotn really mess anything up.

i've been doing some research--or at least tring to find whatever i acn on google--and have found that it existed in 1930s, but i don't think it applied to gangsters.

mick

Say the "squealer/informant" gets immunity from prosecution, and cooperates fully with the authorites and testifies..would the prosecuters under any circumstance legally be able to rescind on their agreement, and "nail" the informant as well. In other words, can they go back on their agreement?

TIS

Unless the informant is totally insane or incompetent, he'd have a lawyer (even a public defender) negotiate the deal with the government and get a written agreement to prevent exactly what you described, TIS. But: if the informant admitted to committing a crime in another county while testifying under oath, the DA or prosecutor in the other county, who wasn't a party to the agreement, might be able to nail him. For example: Suppose you're a big-time bank robber and I'm a small-time local crook. You hire me to drive you to a bank in New York and wait for you while you rob it. In the process, you kill a guard. Cops eventually arrest both of us. The New York DA offers me immunity to testify against you so he can send you away for life. But, in the process of testifying against you, I admit under oath that I stole the car in Bergen County, NJ. The Bergen County DA can then move against me for Grand Theft-Auto-- unless my lawyer who wrote out the deal with the NY DA specifically stipulated that I wouldn't be asked any questions about where or how I got the car.

If Witness Protection was unavailable to Mafiosi in the 30's, what was the equivalent? Did they even have one, or did gangsters "wanting out" just have to wait and get clipped by their own people, and not go to the government?

If this is the case, then I have just spotted a VERY big mistake in the Mafia PC game! That is set in the 30's, and begins with the main character wanting to squeal to the police in order to get Witness Protection! I wonder if the makers knew this.

Thanks in advance,
mick

The authorities might cut a deal with a squealer to give him a pass on prosecution. But, basically, the squealer was on his own after that. There were several famous incidents in which squealers were popped as soon as they left the police station or jail. In fact, merely being arrested was oftentimes provocation for a "preventive hit," whether or not the guy actually squealed.

If you're really writing a novel, why the heck would it be a fictional city? You're not writing a sequel to Batman, are you? Realism, man. Pick a city -- Chicago, New York -- then research it 'til your eyes bleed, to "be there" during the era you're writing in. It's not supposed to be easy...

JG

Research? What is that!? :p I would, if it was my own original plot and everything, but as it's based on the game, I decided to make my own city. The research I would need would be very extensive, and I basically don't get the time; I like to get straight into writing the story. Also, if it is based on a fictional city, I can't go wrong, I play it by my rules. No matter how much research I would be doing on Chicago or any other city, I would almost certainly make mistakes. Ideally, I would have to visit the city itself, but at 15...
Maybe in the future!

Thanks Turnbull.

mick