INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) – Professor Jimmy Gurulé would prefer to prevent wrongful convictions. 

As the founder of the Exoneration Justice Clinic at the University of Notre Dame’s Law School, Gurule has had a hand in freeing four wrongfully convicted clients from prison. The latest, Reginald Dillard, served 27 years for a murder he did not commit. 

Key evidence in Dillard’s trial: jailhouse informant testimony. 

“These jailhouse informants were made certain promises,” Gurule said. “There were certain expectations that they would receive (lighter prison sentences) in exchange for their cooperation, and these promises were never disclosed at trial.”

An I-Team 8 investigation found jailhouse informant testimony in Indiana is largely unregulated. 

Jail informants will typically testify that someone accused of a crime confessed to them while incarcerated. It’s common to have an informant testify in multiple cases they had no connection to, and because Indiana does not require law enforcement to track how often an informant serves as a witness, prosecutors don’t have a comprehensive history of how often an informant has testified. 

“The law already requires prosecutors to disclose what they know about informants,” a spokesperson with the Indiana Public Defenders Council told I-Team 8 in an email. “But that only works if they are keeping track. Right now, a prosecutor can put an informant on the stand without knowing If that same person has testified in other cases, earning benefits each time, or fed information to officers repeatedly with little to show for it. If no one is keeping records, there’s nothing to disclose.”

Gurule says the lack of oversight incentivizes misconduct. 

I-Team 8 found an informant who was once described by a detective as “one of the most prolific informants I ever had,” Terence Peterson. He testified in multiple murder cases but has since said he lied as a witness using information fed to him by authorities.

“Their credibility is clearly an issue. They have an interest in doing and saying whatever the police want them to say,” Gurule said. “That should not be permitted in Indiana.”

The Exoneration Justice Clinic, the Innocence Project, and the Indiana Public Defenders Council are working to draft legislation to put guardrails in place.

Modeling after legislation in Illinois, the advocacy groups are pushing for legislation to create: 

• Pretrial hearings on the credibility of jailhouse informants.
• Special jury instructions ahead of testimony from in-custody informants.
• Recordkeeping of an informant’s history as a witness.

Gurule also said the bill will look to codify the constitutional duty of prosecutors in Indiana to disclose potentially exculpatory evidence.

“It would cause prosecutors to seriously question whether they want to call these jailhouse informants at trial,” Gurule said. “Everyone should be in favor of ensuring that an innocent person is not wrongfully convicted.” 

The groups successfully advocated to increase regulation on eyewitness testimony. Gurule said they’re in discussions with Indiana lawmakers to find sponsors for the legislation, and hope to have it introduced during the next session.

The Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council declined to comment on this story but previously told I-Team 8 it does not have any best practices or guidelines it recommends for in-custody informant testimony.