Having been on something of a judicial jag here recently, I thought it important to shift the spotlight (if briefly) back to prosecutors. In this rather interesting article a defense attorney charges that the prosecution engaged in witness tampering.
Apparently the prosecutors agreed to pay a potential snitch 40,000 dollars
and to terminate his probation if he would set the guy up and then testify against him. The lawyer made the following reasonable argument...."If a defense attorney paid a witness $40,000 to testify for a defendant, she and the defendant would both be charged and indicted for witness tampering. So why should the prosecution be able to get away with it?' His client is a former police chief.