In the late ‘80s in New York City, crime was very high. In particular, the crime rate against cab drivers was huge. Hardly a day went by when a gypsy cab driver wasn’t robbed or murdered, and similar crimes against livery and medallion cab drivers were also common. Many cab drivers wouldn’t venture into certain areas of the city, fearful that they may never drive out.
In an attempt to cut the rate of crime against cab drivers, somebody somewhere raised some money and offered a $1,000 reward for information leading to the conviction of anyone who killed a cabbie. This is/was a common occurrence; there is a standing $10,000 reward for information that leads to the conviction of anyone who shoots a police officer, for example.
And in at least one case, the reward program appeared to work. In 1988, Anthony Faison and Charles Shepard were convicted of murdering a livery cab driver in Brooklyn, largely on the alleged eyewitness testimony of one Carolyn Van Buren, who collected the promised reward.
Messrs. Faison and Shepard each spent 14 years in jail, and would have faced their first parole board hearings later this year.
The only problem, of course, is that they did not do the crime. Ms. Van Buren was lying to get the $1,000. Today, the very same judge who sentenced them in 1988 released them after a long hearing during which he had to be convinced of their innocence (a more detailed story is available on the New York Times website for those who subscribe.
First, a couple of General Questions: Do statistics exist on how often people are paid for their testimony and how often that testimony turns out to be bogus? Is the fact that payment is expected for a conviction an item of mandatory disclosure, even if the payment is not from the state?
The Great Debate: Should it be legal in the United States justice system to pay witnesses to testify, or is the temptation to lie for the money so great that it taints any such testimony?
