AFAIK, there are no examples of a rat giving a tiny tidbit of information to L.E. that resulted in an actual sentence reduction. Which was what OakasFan was implying. The fact of the matter is, in order to get a proper sentence reduction for heinous crimes the feds are going to demand a) that the informer in question goes public and opens himself up to testify against people, and b) give substantial information that can actually be used to at least obtain warrants for wiretaps, bugs, surveillance, or searches, or information that points the feds in a direction for an arrest.

The notion that a mobster can do a one-off drop of minor-level information in order to get a reduced sentence is bullshit. Frank 'Frankie Blue Eyes' Sparaco was an FBI informer during the war, and regularly provided substantial information. Yet he was still given a 24-year sentence for the Michael Devine murder, since he refused to take the stand and come out as an informer. Do you see what I'm saying, Oak? The feds hold the chips here, not the mobsters. You seem to be under the impression that all a mobster needs to do to knock a few years of his sentence or get the feds off his back is drop some minor, unindictable tidbits of information against his friends. No federal agent is going to go out of his way to request a reduced sentence for such lousy "informant" use and a judge would be foolish to agree to it anyways. Feds play hardball. That's why mobsters are forced to leave the life and take the stand. That's why mobsters have to give up serious information in order for federal agents to keep them on. That's why Frankie Sparaco still got a 24-year sentence despite years of cooperation.