In order to convict for lying, the prosecutors bring in testimony from a person who otherwise would be prosecuted for a crime.
In the Martha Stewart case, the only evidence against her was the testimony of a man who was caught using cocaine. Now, in the Barry Bonds case, the testimony is from a man who was accused of theft by Mr. Bonds.
Again and again, in US courts, the person testifying against the accused is a person who was caught for another crime and who is getting a lesser sentence or is having the charges against him dropped in exchange for his testimony.
How can we trust the testimony of such a person? Juries seem oblivious to the possibility that the criminal testifying for the prosecution in return for a plea deal could be lying to save his own skin.
The reason that prosecutors use this kind of testimony is that they are trying to enforce our draconian drug laws. It is sort of a "it takes a druggie to catch a druggie".
Frankly, it is so close to suborning perjury that it is scary. How can you possibly trust the testimony of someone who is avoiding prison by telling us all a good story.
