Survey of Harm to Cooperators:

Final Report

Prepared for the Court Administration and Case Management Committee, 

the Committee on Defender Services, and the Criminal Law Committee 

of the Judicial Conference of the United States

Margaret S. Williams, Donna Stienstra, and Marvin Astrada

Federal Judicial Center

2016

This Federal Judicial Center publication was undertaken in furtherance of the Center’s statutory 

mission to develop and conduct research and education programs for the judicial branch. While 

the Center regards the content as responsible and valuable, it does not reflect policy or recommendation of the Board of the Federal Judicial Center. 

Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 iii

Contents

Acknowledgments, v

Executive Summary, 1

Introduction, 2

Survey Implementation and Administration, 3

Analysis of Results, 6

Harm or Threat to Defendants/Offenders, 8

Types of harm or threat to defendants/offenders, 9

Location of the defendant/offender at the time of harm or threat, 10

Protective custody, 12

Sources for identifying defendants/offenders, 12

Additional instances of harm or threat to defendants/offenders, 14

Summary of results on harm or threat to defendants/offenders, 15

Harm or Threat to Witnesses, 15

Types of harm or threat to witnesses, 16

Location of witnesses at the time of harm or threat, 17

Sources for identifying witnesses, 18

Additional instances of harm or threat to witnesses, 20

Summary of results on harm or threat to witnesses, 20

Additional Questions, 21

Defendant/offender requests for court documents or docket sealing, 21

Withdrawing or refusing cooperation, 22

Comparing the frequency of harm or threat in 2014 to 2013, 25

District steps to protect cooperating information, 25

Open-ended comments summary, 26

Conclusion, 29

Appendix A: Survey Invitation and Questionnaires, 33

Appendix B: Other Types of Harm or Threat to Defendants, 63

Appendix C: Other Locations at the Time of Harm or Threat to Defendants, 65

Appendix D: Other Sources to Identify Defendants, 67

Appendix E: Other Types of Harm or Threat to Witnesses, 77

Appendix F: Other Locations at the Time of Harm or Threat to Witnesses, 79

Appendix G: Other Sources to Identify Witnesses, 85

Appendix H: Other Steps to Protect Cooperation Information, 91

Appendix I: Open-Ended Comments, 93

Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 v

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the following individuals for their assistance with this project: Judge 

Julie Robinson (D. Kan.), Judge Terry Hodges (M.D. Fla.), Judge Catherine Blake (D. 

Md.), Judge Irene Keeley (N.D. W. Va.), and Judge Roger Titus (D. Md.); Matthew Roland, Geoff Cheshire, Cait Clarke, John Fitzgerald, Mark Miskovsky, Michelle Gardner, 

Jane MacCracken, and Sean Marlaire (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts); Jim Eaglin and David Rauma (Federal Judicial Center); and David Smith (Executive Office for 

U.S. Attorneys).

Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 1

Executive Summary

In March 2015, pursuant to an August 2014 request made to the Federal Judicial Center, 

we surveyed federal district judges, U.S. Attorney’s Offices, federal defenders, Criminal 

Justice Act (CJA) district panel representative’s offices, and chief probation and pretrial 

services offices about harm or threat of harm to government cooperators. We summarize 

the results of the survey below.

• Respondents were asked to report harm to defendants/offenders and witnesses in the 

past three years for up to five cases. We limited the number of cases to five to prevent 

overtaxing respondents.

• Of 1,371 recipients, 976 completed the survey—a response rate of 71%.

• Respondents reported a minimum of 571 instances of harm to defendants/offenders 

and witnesses. Cases often involved harm to both defendants/offenders and witnesses.

• Among all types of harm or threat, respondents most often reported threats of physical harm to defendants/offenders or witnesses and to friends or family of defendants/offenders or witnesses.

• Defendants were most likely to be harmed or threatened when in some type of custody, while witnesses were either in pretrial detention or not in custody at the time of 

harm or threat.

• Respondents frequently reported court documents or court proceedings as the source 

for identifying cooperators.

• Respondents reported that concerns of harm or threat affected the willingness of both 

defendants/offenders and witnesses to cooperate with the government in the past 

three years.

• Respondents generally agreed that harm to cooperators was a significant problem and

that more needed to be done, by the judiciary and/or the Bureau of Prisons, to protect 

cooperators from harm.
2 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Introduction

In August 2014, Judge Julie Robinson, then chair of the Court Administration and Case 

Management Committee (CACM), asked the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) to conduct a 

study to determine the number of offenders harmed or threatened with harm because 

they cooperated, or were suspected of cooperating, with the government. The population 

of concern included inmates who were post-conviction and in the custody of the Bureau 

of Prisons (BOP) and identified as cooperators through the use of court documents.1 The

request, made on behalf of CACM, the Criminal Law Committee, and the Committee on 

Defender Services, asked that we survey federal defenders, Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 

panel attorneys, federal prosecutors, and probation officers and ask them to report the 

number of offenders harmed or threatened with harm. We added district judges, witnesses, pretrial services offices, and pretrial detention to the study design as a result of early 

discussions with staff from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO staff). 

After receiving feedback from the three requesting committees, the Executive Office 

for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA), and AO staff, the FJC designed a research study involving 

Web surveys of the groups listed above. The design of the survey instrument included 

asking the same basic questions of all groups, with additional questions targeted to specific populations based on which ones were most likely to have the information sought. The 

need to target questions to specific groups resulted in multiple versions of the survey instrument (see below). The FJC worked closely with the CACM Privacy Subcommittee 

(Subcommittee) to develop questionnaires that would acquire the needed information 

and be understood by recipients. 

The Subcommittee approved the questionnaires on February 24, 2015.2 The five 

groups surveyed included all chief district judges, all district judges (active and senior status), U.S. Attorney’s Offices, federal public defender and CJA district panel representative’s offices, and chief probation and pretrial services offices. We obtained email lists for 

each group from various sources, including staff of the AO and EOUSA, as well as electronically available sources. Several groups made efforts to alert respondents to the survey 

before the initial mailing. In September 2014, Judge Julie Robinson, Judge Catherine 

Blake, and Judge Irene Keeley, as chairs of their respective committees, sent an initial letter to all district judges alerting them to the problem of harm to cooperators. Several other groups made efforts to alert respondents to the study at the end of February 2015, days 

before the survey went into the field. The EOUSA sent an email to all U.S. attorneys alerting them to the importance of their participation in the survey. The probation and pretrial services office of the AO included notification of the survey in a weekly email to all 

probation and pretrial services chiefs. Judge Terry Hodges, the chair of CACM, sent a letter to all circuit chief judges asking for their help in alerting judges in their circuits to the 

forthcoming survey invitation. Lastly, staff from the defender services office of the AO 

 

1. Letter from Judge Julie A. Robinson, chair of the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management, to Judge Jeremy D. Fogel, director of the Federal Judicial Center, August 14, 2014.

2. We asked the initial set of questions, regarding cases involving harm and the details of that harm, of all 

respondents, with slight variations in wording. For most respondents, we referred to “defendants and/or witnesses” while for chief probation and pretrial services offices we referred to “defendants/offenders and/or 

witnesses.” We use these terms interchangeably in this report.
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 3

mentioned the survey to participants at their federal defender meeting prior to survey 

distribution.

Survey Implementation and Administration

On March 3, 2015, we distributed the surveys electronically. A cover email, signed by the 

chairs of the three requesting committees, explained the purpose of the survey and included the link for completing the survey.3 Two weeks later, we sent a reminder email to 

everyone who had not completed the survey. We sent a final reminder email on March 

31, 2015, to everyone who had not yet completed the survey. The survey closed on April 

8, 2015, although anyone asking to submit a late response was permitted to do so until we 

began drafting the report.

4

A few issues pertaining to survey administration merit consideration before we present our analysis of the results. First, while chief district judges and district judges responded to the surveys for themselves, the other three groups of respondents reported for 

their offices. The efforts to coordinate office-wide responses made completion of the survey more difficult for these groups. Moreover, the results for all judges represent the experience of individual judges over the past three years, while the results for the other groups 

represent the experiences of an unknown, but substantially larger, number of people for 

that same period. If more harm is reported by the office respondents, this should not be 

considered an indication of anything more than inclusion of the responses of more people. These differences in respondent groups should be kept in mind as the results are discussed below.5

The overall response rates, shown below in Table 1, are quite strong. Chief probation 

and pretrial services offices responded at the highest rate, while district judges and U.S. Attorney’s Offices responded at relatively lower rates, but still at levels sufficient for analysis.

 

3. We provide a copy of this email and final versions of the survey in Appendix A. Because of an error in 

the survey software provided by the vendor, only half of the district judges received the email invitation on 

March 3. The remaining judges received the initial request for the survey on March 17, 2015. To ensure that 

these judges had ample time to complete the survey, we extended the field period of the survey. Like all respondents, the judges in this second wave received a follow-up email if they did not complete the survey; we 

sent the follow-up email on March 31, 2015. Thus, the first wave of judges received an invitation and two 

reminders, while the second wave received the follow up and one reminder. This error did not substantially 

affect the overall response rate of judges, as shown below.

4. A small number of respondents, either by preference or because of technical problems, requested to 

complete the survey on paper. For those submitting paper responses, FJC staff electronically entered their 

answers to all survey questions after the survey period ended.

5. While survey responses might be weighted in such circumstances, the results reported below are the 

unweighted survey responses. We did not weight survey responses for two reasons. First, we did not sample 

any of the respondent groups; we surveyed populations. Without a sampling frame, there is nothing by which 

to weight survey responses—except for probability of responding. We cannot weight by the probability of 

responding for a second reason: the respondent groups are not the same. Chief district judges and district 

judges responded as individuals. All other respondent groups were responding for an entire office, representing an unknown number of respondents. Because we do not know how many people each response represents, we cannot weight the responses as such. For these reasons, and given that we report only the frequencies 

with which responses occurred, it is not problematic to report unweighted survey results.
4 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Table 1. Survey Response Rate

Respondents

Questionnaires 

Sent

Questionnaires 

Completed

Response 

Rate

Chief District Judges 94 77 82%

District Judges 929 611 66%

U.S. Attorney’s Offices 93 62 66%

Federal Defenders and CJA District 

Panel Representative’s Offices

178 128 72%

Chief Probation and Pretrial Services 

Offices

113 110 97%

Total 1,407 988 70%

A second issue of survey administration affected the responses of judges more than the 

other groups, though its impact was minimal. The list of district judges participating in the 

survey included active and senior status judges. Some senior status judges are in inactive 

status, while others are in active status, but no longer hear criminal cases as a matter of preference. Additionally, judges newly appointed to the bench may not have criminal cases on 

their docket, especially if they served in the U.S. Attorney’s Office prior to their appointment. Thus, there are two groups of judges—those very new to the bench and those very 

senior—for whom a survey of harm to cooperators in criminal cases did not apply. To include the responses of these individuals would bias the number of instances of harm reported toward zero (they know of no instances of harm, but that is because they have no criminal cases). While, ideally, we would have excluded these judges from the survey population 

at the outset, such information was not systematically available on all judges, and we were 

not able to do so. After receiving the survey invitation, a number of judges contacted the 

FJC regarding their experience with criminal cases, either because they were new to the 

bench or they were in senior status (inactive or active but not taking criminal cases). We 

gave judges who contacted the FJC the option to complete the survey if they chose.6 We 

closed the surveys of judges who opted against completing the survey for these reasons and 

removed them from the reported results. These exclusions bring the total response rate for 

district judges to 599 completed surveys out of a possible 899 district judges, or 67% of potential respondents. Table 2 shows the final response rates, after excluding those judges who 

notified us they were ineligible to answer the questionnaire.

 

6. A small number of additional judges were unable to complete the survey during the allotted time for 

other reasons, including poor health and international travel. We also removed these judges from the survey 

results reported below. Undoubtedly, more newly appointed and senior status judges could have been excluded from the survey totals. If the judges did not contact the FJC, however, there is no way for us to know this 

information.
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 5

Table 2. Revised Survey Response Rate

Respondents

Questionnaires 

Sent

Questionnaires 

Completed

Response 

Rate

Chief District Judges 94 77 82%

District Judges 899 599 67%

U.S. Attorney’s Offices 93 62 66%

Federal Defenders and CJA District 

Panel Representative’s Offices

178 128 72%

Chief Probation and Pretrial Services 

Offices

113 110 97%

Total 1,377 976 71%

We addressed a third issue of survey administration, related to the first, after closing 

the survey on April 8, 2015. For some survey respondents (but only in groups coordinating an office response) duplicate answers appeared in the data. Typically duplicates occurred because a respondent began answering the survey and then thought a designee, 

such as the criminal division chief in a district office of the U.S. attorneys, would be better 

suited to answer the questions. In all instances of duplicate answers, respondents notified 

the FJC of the issue and asked for a second survey link to be emailed to the designee. We 

compared the two responses to ensure no loss of data occurred with the removal of duplicate (partial) answers. One response, whether for an individual or office, remains in the 

data.

Despite these three issues, we find the survey results to be robust and reliable. Given 

the difficult nature of recalling the detailed events of the last three years, the limited 

timeframe for completing the survey, and the required efforts to coordinate a single office-wide response for the non-judge groups, a 71% response rate is high. Undoubtedly, 

the advance efforts to alert recipients to the survey, the follow-up reminders, and the salience of the topic contributed to so many people completing the survey. The high response 

rate increases our confidence in the results of the survey, reported below.

The geographic distribution of the survey responses further increases our confidence 

in the results. At least one judge from each of the 94 judicial districts responded to the 

survey, and 61% of the districts had responses from all groups. Defender and panel representative’s offices responded from 83 different districts. The responses of probation and 

pretrial services offices represent the experiences of 92 different judicial districts. U.S. Attorney’s Office responses were distributed across 62 judicial districts. Overall, we are confident the responses to the survey represent the national picture.

We should note one final issue affecting the reporting of the survey responses. Judges, 

defenders, prosecutors, probation officers, and pretrial services officers all see the same 

defendants/offenders and witnesses at different times. The instances of harm reported 

below undoubtedly include responses that detail the events in the same case from the perspectives of the judge, the attorneys, and the probation officers. Totaling the instances of 

harm across these groups risks over-counting the same event multiple times. Because we 

have no way of knowing if all groups are reporting the same events from different per-
6 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

spectives, we cannot remove any duplicate reporting of events. Instead, the results below 

report the range in instances of harm. 

Analysis of Results

The first question on the survey asked respondents to report whether they knew of an instance in the past three years of harm or threat to defendants/offenders or witnesses (or 

their friends or family) because of the defendant/offender’s or witness’s cooperation with 

the government. If the respondent answered yes, we asked additional questions about the 

details of the harm or threat (described below). After the respondent answered the detailed questions on the first case, the initial screening question, followed by the detailed 

questions, repeated for up to five cases.

The results in Figure 1 show the percentage of respondents in each group reporting 

harm on each of up to five cases. The percentages reported for cases two through five 

were calculated for the subgroup that reported harm in the prior case. Ninety-seven percent of the 62 responding U.S. Attorney’s Offices reported harm in a first case, while 49%

of the 599 responding judges, 68% of defender offices, and 73% of probation offices reported a first case with harm.7 Of the U.S. Attorney’s Offices reporting harm in a first 

case, 95% reported harm in a second case as well. Overall, as a percentage of respondents, 

U.S. Attorney’s Offices reported harm with greater frequency than any other group. In 

fact, more than 50% of U.S. Attorneys Offices responding to the survey reported harm in 

all five cases. Only 3% of U.S. Attorney’s Offices reported no instances of harm or threat, 

whereas 27% of probation offices, 32% of defender offices, and 51% of the judges reported no instances of harm or threat. 

 

7. Twenty-nine of the judges reporting no instances of harm stated later in the survey that they knew of 

no instances of harm because they were very new to the bench or in senior status and no longer hearing criminal cases. If we removed these judges from the total, as we did with the judges who alerted us to their status 

prior to completing the survey, the percentage of judges reporting on a first case of harm would be just over 

50%.
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 7

Figure 1. Frequency of Harm or Threat Reported, by Respondent Group8

After reporting an instance of harm, respondents then described whether the harm or 

threat was directed at defendants/offenders or witnesses (or their family or friends). A 

respondent could choose both defendants/offenders and witnesses, if both were involved 

in the same case. Figure 2 shows the frequency with which defendants/offenders and witnesses were the subject of harm across all reported incidents. Respondents often reported 

harm to both defendants/offenders and witnesses in the same case.

 

8. Figures in this report, including Figure 1, show the frequency of an event by respondent groups, both 

as a percentage of the group and a number of reported events. The bars in Figure 1 show the frequency of 

harm as a percentage of the group, while the number on the bar is the actual number of instances of harm 

reported. For purposes of reporting, chief district judges and district judges are combined into a single group 

for all tables with one exception: Table 10, which reports district steps to protect cooperation information, 

includes the responses of chief district judges only, as they were the only group to receive that question.

          

&REQUENCYOF2ESPONSE

$EFENDER0ANEL2EP &IRST#ASE

3ECOND#ASE

4HIRD#ASE

&OURTH#ASE

&IFTH#ASE

*UDGE &IRST#ASE

3ECOND#ASE

4HIRD#ASE

&OURTH#ASE

&IFTH#ASE

0ROBATION0RETRIAL &IRST#ASE

3ECOND#ASE

4HIRD#ASE

&OURTH#ASE

&IFTH#ASE

53!TTORNEY &IRST#ASE

3ECOND#ASE

4HIRD#ASE

&OURTH#ASE

&IFTH#ASE

























 











 















 

 







 





 



 































9ES )CANgTRECALL .O
8 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Figure 2. Frequency of Harm or Threat to Defendants and Witnesses, by Respondent Group

Taking these facts together, the results of the survey show that the 976 questionnaire respondents reported at least 571 instances of harm or threat to as many as 381 defendants/offenders and 292 witnesses in the past three years. These numbers, which are those 

reported by the judicial respondents, are the minimum number of instances of harm or 

threat. We assume that some number of instances reported by the other three groups of 

respondents are not duplicates of the instances reported by the judges and thus the actual 

incidence of harm and threat is higher.

Both the frequency of occurrence and the number of people harmed or threatened in 

the past three years are sufficient to provide details about the nature of threats and harm 

(reported below). While respondents did not always have complete information on the 

events that occurred, they provided a substantial amount of detailed information on the 

type of harm, the location of the individual at the time harm occurred, and the source for 

identifying cooperators. We report summaries of the details for defendants/offenders and 

witnesses separately below. The results are aggregated across all cases, though we would 

expect that the details of the first case are somewhat more cognitively available to the respondent (as it is the first case occurring to them) than the details of the fifth case. Of

course, availability bias is more likely to be a problem for individual judicial respondents 

than other groups who provided an office response.

Harm or Threat to Defendants/Offenders

When respondents reported an instance of harm or threat to a defendant/offender, we 

asked them to detail the type of harm or threat that occurred. These details included the 

type of harm or threat, the location of the defendant/offender at the time of harm or 

threat, and the source used to identify the defendant/offender as a cooperator.

          

&REQUENCYOF2ESPONSE

$EFENDER0ANEL2EP &IRST#ASE

3ECOND#ASE

4HIRD#ASE

&OURTH#ASE

&IFTH#ASE

*UDGE &IRST#ASE

3ECOND#ASE

4HIRD#ASE

&OURTH#ASE

&IFTH#ASE

0ROBATION0RETRIAL &IRST#ASE

3ECOND#ASE

4HIRD#ASE

&OURTH#ASE

&IFTH#ASE

53!TTORNEY &IRST#ASE

3ECOND#ASE

4HIRD#ASE

&OURTH#ASE

&IFTH#ASE









 



















 





 









 















 







 







 























$EFENDANTS/NLY "OTH 7ITNESSES/NLY
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 9

Types of harm or threat to defendants/offenders

Respondents could select as many categories as described the case in question.9 If, for example, a defendant/offender was threatened with physical harm and then beaten, the respondent could check the boxes for both threats of physical harm and actual physical 

harm. Figure 3 reports all threats and harm to defendants/offenders reported by all respondent groups for all instances in the past three years. While the bar represents the frequency of the answer as a percentage of the group, the number on the bar is the actual 

number of responses in that category. Respondents most often reported threats of physical harm to the defendant/offender and to the friends and family of the defendant/offender. Over 80% of the incidents reported involved threats of physical harm, a 

minimum number of 339 instances. The minimum number of instances of actual harm 

(murder and other physical harm) is 133.

Those selecting the “Other” category detailed a variety of types of harm to the defendant.10 While some of the incidents could be classified into the existing categories, two additional categories emerged from the “Other” responses: Internet/community/general 

threats and property damage. Internet/community/general threats included responses 

such as “told family members to put his name on rats.com,” “flyers posted in his neighborhood,” “[d]efendant’s status as a cooperator was put on the internet,” and “[n]ame 

posted on Top Snitches Facebook page.” Property damage included shooting at the cars 

or houses of defendants, or harm to pets. We report the remaining details, which are too 

varied to categorize, in Appendix B.

Table 3. Categories of “Other” Harm or Threat to Defendants Specified by Respondents

Category of “Other” Harm or Threat Number of Responses

Internet/Community/General Threats 16

Existing Categories 9

Property Damage 9

Other 5

 

9. It is for this reason that the types of harm or threat reported are higher than the number of defendants 

harmed or threatened.

10. When the questionnaire gave respondents the option to choose “Other,” respondents were asked to 

specify what they meant. For every question where respondents could select “Other,” we found instances of 

respondents selecting other without specifying what they meant, or writing in a specification without having 

chosen “Other.” To prevent loss of information, the Appendices report all specified comments, regardless of 

whether “Other” was selected as a category or not. For each of the “Other” options, we made an initial attempt to categorize these comments. We report this categorization in the tables in the text, while the items 

coded into each category can be found in the Appendices. All specifications and open-ended responses reported in the Appendices were lightly edited for clarity and redacted to prevent identifying either the case or 

the respondent.
10 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Figure 3. Frequency of the Type of Harm or Threat Directed at Defendants, by Respondent Group

          

&REQUENCYOF2ESPONSE

4HREATSOF0HYSICAL(ARM

$EFENDER0ANEL2EP*UDGE0ROBATION0RETRIAL53!TTORNEY

4HREATSTO&RIENDSOR

&AMILY

$EFENDER0ANEL2EP*UDGE0ROBATION0RETRIAL53!TTORNEY

0HYSICAL(ARM

$EFENDER0ANEL2EP*UDGE0ROBATION0RETRIAL53!TTORNEY

-URDER $EFENDER0ANEL2EP

*UDGE0ROBATION0RETRIAL53!TTORNEY

(ARMTO&RIENDSOR

&AMILY

$EFENDER0ANEL2EP*UDGE0ROBATION0RETRIAL53!TTORNEY

4HREATSOF%CONOMIC(ARM

$EFENDER0ANEL2EP*UDGE0ROBATION0RETRIAL53!TTORNEY

%CONOMIC(ARM

$EFENDER0ANEL2EP*UDGE0ROBATION0RETRIAL53!TTORNEY

/THER(ARM $EFENDER0ANEL2EP

*UDGE0ROBATION0RETRIAL53!TTORNEY











 

 















 





 



 











 

 

 

 











 

























 

 

 



  

 

   









 





 



 



 



















 











 































 







.O (AVENOKNOWLEDGE -ISSING 9ES
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 11

Location of the defendant/offender at the time of harm or threat

After reporting the details of harm or threat, respondents identified the location of the 

defendant/offender at the time the harm or threat occurred. Once again, because respondents reported multiple instances of harm or threat for each case, more than one location could be chosen. Figure 4 reports the number and percentage of respondents reporting each location across all respondents and all cases. Respondents most often reported that defendants/offenders were harmed or threatened while in pretrial detention—a 

minimum of 207 instances—followed by pretrial release and incarceration—a minimum 

of 125 instances. Chief probation and pretrial services offices reported the location of the 

defendant/offender as “on probation” more often than other groups, which is not surprising given their contact with defendants/offenders at that time. Overall, as a percentage, 

respondents reported a substantial amount of harm occurring while defendants were in 

custody of some kind.

Figure 4. Frequency of Reported Location of Defendant at the Time of Harm or Threat, by 

Respondent Group

          

&REQUENCYOF2ESPONSE

0RETRIAL

$ETENTION

$EFENDER0ANEL2EP

*UDGE

0ROBATION0RETRIAL

53!TTORNEY

0RETRIAL

2ELEASE

$EFENDER0ANEL2EP

*UDGE

0ROBATION0RETRIAL

53!TTORNEY

)NCARCERATED  $EFENDER0ANEL2EP

*UDGE0ROBATION

0RETRIAL53

!TTORNEY

/N

0ROBATION

$EFENDER0ANEL2EP

*UDGE

0ROBATION0RETRIAL

53!TTORNEY

22#OR

(ALFWAY

(OUSE

$EFENDER0ANEL2EP

*UDGE

0ROBATION0RETRIAL

53!TTORNEY

/THER

,OCATION

$EFENDER0ANEL2EP

*UDGE

0ROBATION0RETRIAL

53!TTORNEY





 



 

 

 

 







  





 











 









 















 







 









  

 







 

 





 







 

 







 

  









 







9ES -ISSING (AVENOKNOWLEDGE .O
12 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Respondents also specified “Other” locations for the defendant/offender at the time of 

harm or threat. The “Other” response provided most often was that the defendant/

offender was not in any form of custody. The second most common response included 

defendants/offenders who were in some other form of custody that we did not specify. We 

report other specified options provided by respondents in Appendix C.

Table 4. Categories of “Other” Defendant Locations Specified by Respondents

Category of “Other” Locations Number of Responses

Not in Custody of Any Kind 13

Other Forms of Custody 10

Other 7

Protective custody

One set of questions, only for those reporting harm to defendants/offenders, asked respondents if the defendant/offender requested or received protective custody or placement in a special housing unit (SHU). Figure 5 shows the number of respondents reporting that defendants/offenders requested protective custody and the number receiving it. 

Because respondents may know of defendants/offenders requesting but not receiving protective custody (or receiving it without knowing if they requested it) we asked both questions of all respondents reporting harm to defendants/offenders. Respondents knew of a 

minimum of 128 instances of defendants/offenders requesting protective custody and a 

minimum of 136 instances of defendants/offenders receiving protective custody.

Figure 5. Frequency of Defendants Requesting and Receiving Protective Custody, by 

Respondent Group

Sources for identifying defendants/offenders 

We asked respondents to report any court documents used to identify the defendant/offender as a cooperator. Respondents could report multiple sources. Figure 6 shows 

          

&REQUENCYOF2ESPONSE

2EQUESTED

0ROTECTIVE

#USTODY

$EFENDER0ANEL2EP

*UDGE

0ROBATION0RETRIAL

53!TTORNEY

2ECEIVED

0ROTECTIVE

#USTODY

$EFENDER0ANEL2EP

*UDGE

0ROBATION0RETRIAL

53!TTORNEY







 









 

















 





















9ES -ISSING )CANTRECALL .O
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 13

the percentage and number of respondents reporting the use of each type of document for 

identifying the defendant/offender as a cooperator. The plea agreement or plea supplement was the document most frequently used to identify a defendant/offender as a cooperator—a minimum of 135 instances—with a 5K1.1 motion used nearly as often—a minimum of 111 instances.

Figure 6. Frequency of the Use of Court Documents to Identify Defendant Cooperators, by 

Respondent Group

Regarding the “Other” sources by which cooperators were identified, a single category 

emerged. Respondents frequently reported use of other court documents or proceedings, 

especially discovery, testimony, and inferences from docket activity (such as sealed entries 

or gaps in docket sequence numbers) to identify defendant/offender cooperators. Appendix D details the exact sources of information while Table 5 shows the categorization of 

those details.

          

&REQUENCYOF2ESPONSE

0LEA

!GREEMENT

$EFENDER0ANEL2EP

*UDGE

0ROBATION0RETRIAL

53!TTORNEY

/THER3OURCE $EFENDER0ANEL2EP

*UDGE0ROBATION

0RETRIAL53

!TTORNEY

+

-OTION

$EFENDER0ANEL2EP

*UDGE

0ROBATION0RETRIAL

53!TTORNEY

3ENTENCING

-EMO

$EFENDER0ANEL2EP

*UDGE

0ROBATION0RETRIAL

53!TTORNEY

2ULE

-OTION

$EFENDER0ANEL2EP

*UDGE

0ROBATION0RETRIAL

53!TTORNEY

*UDICIAL

/PINION

$EFENDER0ANEL2EP

*UDGE

0ROBATION0RETRIAL

53!TTORNEY

 

 

 

 





 









 



 



  

 











  



 



 

 



 





 





 





 



 









 



 















 



 



















 



9ES -ISSING (AVENOKNOWLEDGE .O
14 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Table 5. Categories of “Other” Sources Used to Identify Defendant Cooperators 

Specified by Respondents

Categories of “Other” Sources Number of Responses

Other Court Documents/Proceedings 165

Talking to Agents/Debriefing/Government Disclosure 14

Codefendant/Known 14

Suspicion 12

Other 11

News Reports 5

Additional instances of harm or threat to defendants/offenders

To avoid overtaxing respondents with an excessively long questionnaire, we capped the 

number of cases on which respondents could provide detailed information at five. We did 

not, however, want the total amount of harm reported by the survey to be artificially 

capped by this number. To provide an indication of how much additional harm occurred 

in the past three years, we asked respondents reporting on a fifth case two additional 

questions, one regarding defendants and one regarding witnesses (discussed below). If the 

fifth case involved harm to a defendant/offender, we asked the following: “Not including 

the defendants regarding whom you’ve provided information in this survey, how many 

more defendants from your cases have you learned were harmed or threatened in the past 

three years?” For this question, we required respondents to enter a whole number, between 0 and 100.11

Figure 7 shows the number of defendants/offenders reported by all groups. If we sum 

the numbers provided by all respondents, and assume there were no duplicate answers 

across groups, we find a maximum of 579 more defendants/offenders harmed or threatened with harm in the past three years. The number of additional defendants/offenders 

harmed ranged from a low of 21 (reported by chief probation and pretrial services offices) 

to a high of 236 additional defendants/offenders (reported by defender and panel representative’s offices). While few respondents reported information on a fifth case, those 

who did were often reporting for an office. The office responses were more likely to report 

100 or more additional defendants/offenders harmed in the past three years.

 

11. Initial discussions within the FJC and with AO staff suggested that capping this number at 100 would 

yield more reliable data. A handful of respondents found this cap to be a source of frustration and chose to 

report their frustration, as well as a number over 100, in their open-ended responses (see below).
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 15

Figure 7. Frequency of Additional Instances of Harm or Threat to Defendants, by 

Respondent Group

Summary of results on harm or threat to defendants/offenders

To summarize the findings regarding harm to defendants/offenders, respondents reported a minimum of 381 instances of harm or threat directed at defendants/offenders for 

their cooperation (or perceived cooperation) with the federal government over the past 

three years (Figure 2). A minimum of an additional 236 defendants/offenders experienced 

harm or threat, though we have no additional information on the circumstances of these 

events (Figure 7). When the harm or threat occurred, the defendant/offender was in some 

form of custody, including pretrial detention or incarceration. In many instances defendants/offenders were identified as cooperators by use of court documents, especially plea 

agreements or plea supplements, 5K1.1 motions, and docketing activity such as the presence of sealed entries and gaps in docket sequence numbers (Figure 6 and Table 5).

Harm or Threat to Witnesses

In addition to reporting information on the harm to defendants/offenders for cooperating with the government, the survey asked respondents to report on harm to witnesses. 

While the questions are largely the same as those for defendant/offender cooperators, the 

results are somewhat different. Overall, detailed information on harm to witnesses appears to be less readily available to respondents. Nonetheless, there is still sufficient information for examination.

$EFENDER0ANEL2EP *UDGES 0ROBATION0RETRIAL 53!TTORNEY

                      











.UMBEROF!DDITIONAL$EFENDANTS2EPORTED(ARMED

&REQUENCYOF2ESPONSE
16 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 Figure 8. Frequency of the Type of Harm or Threat Directed at Witnesses, by Respondent Group            &REQUENCYOF2ESPONSE 4HREATSOF 0HYSICAL (ARM $EFENDER0ANEL2EP *UDGE 0ROBATION0RETRIAL 53!TTORNEY 4HREATSTO &RIENDSOR &AMILY $EFENDER0ANEL2EP *UDGE 0ROBATION0RETRIAL 53!TTORNEY 0HYSICAL (ARM $EFENDER0ANEL2EP *UDGE 0ROBATION0RETRIAL 53!TTORNEY -URDER $EFENDER0ANEL2EP *UDGE 0ROBATION0RETRIAL 53!TTORNEY 4HREATSOF %CONOMIC (ARM $EFENDER0ANEL2EP *UDGE 0ROBATION0RETRIAL 53!TTORNEY (ARMTO &RIENDSOR &AMILY $EFENDER0ANEL2EP *UDGE 0ROBATION0RETRIAL 53!TTORNEY /THER(ARM $EFENDER0ANEL2EP *UDGE0ROBATION 0RETRIAL53 !TTORNEY %CONOMIC (ARM $EFENDER0ANEL2EP *UDGE 0ROBATION0RETRIAL 53!TTORNEY         





 





 



 





 

 













 





   





 







  

















 









 





























 



 





 





 













 













 

 

 



 









 







.O (AVENOKNOWLEDGE -ISSING

9ES
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 17

Types of harm or threat to witnesses

Figure 8 reports the types of harm or threat directed at witnesses thought to be cooperating with the government. Similar to defendants/offenders, the most common types of 

harm are threats of physical harm, threats to friends and family, and actual physical harm. 

At minimum, in the three-year period, respondents reported 229 instances where a witness was threatened with physical harm, 148 instances involved threats to a friend or 

family member, and 88 instances involving actual physical harm (murder or physical 

harm other than murder). Because some of the instances reported by defender, probation, 

and U.S. Attorney’s Offices are almost certainly not duplicates of the instances reported 

by judges, the actual number of instances of harm or threat of harm to witnesses was likely higher.

Relatively few respondents chose “Other” as the type of harm or threat directed at 

witnesses. We report the details of these other types of harm in Appendix E, including 

attempted murder, contracting to kill a witness, general threats and harassment, and 

property damage. Table 6 shows the categorization of the “Other” categories.

Table 6. Categories of “Other” Harm or Threat to Witnesses Specified by Respondents

“Other” Categories of Harm or Threat Number of Responses

Other 15

Internet/Community/General Threats 8

Property Damage 4

Attempted Murder 3

Existing Categories 2

Location of witnesses at the time of harm or threat

Figure 9 shows the reported location of witnesses at the time the harm or threat occurred. 

Here we see a number of differences from the locations listed for the defendants. Witnesses were likely to be in pretrial detention (often because they are uncharged coconspirators 

or codefendants—as reported in the open-ended comments) or on pretrial release. At a 

minimum, 85 incidents occurred when the witness was in pretrial detention and 63 instances occurred when the witness was on pretrial release. The next most common locations for witnesses were “Other”—a minimum of 55 instances—and incarceration—a 

minimum of 49 instances. As Table 7 shows, the “Other” location for witnesses was almost always not in custody—i.e., they were at home, at work, or in their community—

because they were uncharged. We report the complete list of locations in Appendix F. We 

should note that many respondents were unable to report the location of witnesses at the 

time the harm or threat occurred.
18 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Figure 9. Frequency of Reported Location of Witness at the Time of Harm or Threat, by 

Respondent Group

Table 7. Categories of “Other” Witness Locations Specified by Respondents

Categories of “Other” Locations Number of Responses

Not in Custody of Any Kind 130

Other 21

Existing Category 4

Sources for identifying witnesses

The sources for identifying a cooperating witness also show a different pattern than we 

reported for the defendants/offenders. While respondents reported that cooperating defendants/offenders were identified in 5K1.1 motions or plea agreements, witness identification occurred most often through “Other” sources, discussed in more detail below. Figure 10 reports the sources used to identify cooperating witnesses and shows that at a minimum witnesses were identified through “Other” sources 59 times. Plea agreements or 

plea supplements were used to identify cooperating witnesses in 54 instances.

          

&REQUENCYOF2ESPONSE

0RETRIAL

$ETENTION

$EFENDER0ANEL2EP

*UDGE

0ROBATION0RETRIAL

53!TTORNEY

/THER

,OCATION

$EFENDER0ANEL2EP

*UDGE

0ROBATION0RETRIAL

53!TTORNEY

0RETRIAL

2ELEASE

$EFENDER0ANEL2EP

*UDGE

0ROBATION0RETRIAL

53!TTORNEY

)NCARCERATED  $EFENDER0ANEL2EP

*UDGE0ROBATION

0RETRIAL53

!TTORNEY

/N

0ROBATION

$EFENDER0ANEL2EP

*UDGE

0ROBATION0RETRIAL

53!TTORNEY

22#OR

(ALFWAY

(OUSE

$EFENDER0ANEL2EP

*UDGE

0ROBATION0RETRIAL

53!TTORNEY

  



 





















  











 

 











 















 



 















  















 













  



 

















  











9ES -ISSING (AVENOKNOWLEDGE .O
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 19

Figure 10. Frequency of the Use of Court Documents to Identify Witness Cooperators, by 

Respondent Group

Similar to defendants/offenders, respondents often reported witnesses being identified 

through other court documents, especially testimony, witness lists, and during discovery. 

Table 8 reports the categorization of the specified responses, which are provided in Appendix G.

Table 8. Categories of “Other” Sources Used to Identify Witness Cooperators Specified 

by Respondents

Categories of “Other” Sources Number of Responses

Other Court Documents/Proceedings 135

Codefendants/Known 15

Other 12

Suspicion 7

Talking to Agents/Debriefs/Government Disclosure 2

News 1

          

&REQUENCYOF2ESPONSE

/THER3OURCE  $EFENDER0ANEL2EP

*UDGE0ROBATION

0RETRIAL53

!TTORNEY

0LEA

!GREEMENT

$EFENDER0ANEL2EP

*UDGE

0ROBATION0RETRIAL

53!TTORNEY

+

-OTION

$EFENDER0ANEL2EP

*UDGE

0ROBATION0RETRIAL

53!TTORNEY

3ENTENCING

-EMO

$EFENDER0ANEL2EP

*UDGE

0ROBATION0RETRIAL

53!TTORNEY

2ULE

-OTION

$EFENDER0ANEL2EP

*UDGE

0ROBATION0RETRIAL

53!TTORNEY

*UDICIAL

/PINION

$EFENDER0ANEL2EP

*UDGE

0ROBATION0RETRIAL

53!TTORNEY







 











 





 

















 







 











 















 





 





















 



  



































 

 







9ES -ISSING (AVENOKNOWLEDGE .O
20 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Additional instances of harm or threat to witnesses

We asked respondents reporting information about a fifth case of harm to witnesses to 

report any additional harm to witnesses from the past three years. Once again, we required the respondents to choose a number between 0 and 100. Figure 11 shows the reported number of witnesses. If we total the number of witnesses reportedly harmed, again 

assuming no duplicate responses, we find a maximum of 365 additional witnesses threatened or harmed in the past three years. U.S. Attorney’s Offices reported an additional 301 

instances of harm or threat to witnesses, while judges reported an additional 64 instances. 

As with defendants/offenders, while few respondents reported information on a fifth case, 

those who did were often reporting for an office. The office responses were more likely to 

report higher numbers of additional witnesses than individual respondents. It is worth 

noting, however, that no respondents from probation and pretrial services offices or federal defender offices reported additional instances of harm.

Figure 11. Frequency of Additional Instances of Harm or Threat to Witnesses

*UDGES 53!TTORNEY

3 5 6 15 22 30 75 100

0

1

2

3

4

50 0 1 2 3 5 7 11

.UMBEROF !DDITIONAL7ITNESSES2EPORTED(ARMED

&REQUENCYOF2ESPONSE
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 21

Summary of results on harm or threat to witnesses

While respondents reported harm to witnesses less frequently than they reported harm to 

defendants/offenders, a minimum of 292 instances of harm or threat to witnesses occurred in the past three years (Figure 8). An additional 301 instances of harm or threat 

occurred, but we cannot report the details of these additional events (Figure 11). Witnesses were more likely than defendants/offenders to be out of custody at the time they were 

harmed, though many were also in custody as codefendants or uncharged coconspirators

(Figure 9). Identification of witnesses often occurred through court documents, specifically witness lists, through testimony, and during discovery (Figure 10). 

Additional Questions

In addition to questions about the frequency of harm to defendants/offenders and witnesses, the questionnaire included other items designed to shed light on harm to cooperators. We asked those questions only of the relevant respondent groups.

Defendant/offender requests for court documents or docket sealing

We asked federal defenders and CJA district panel representative’s offices about the frequency with which their clients requested court documents to prove they were not a cooperator, and the frequency with which their clients asked them to seal all or part of the 

CM/ECF docket. For both questions, we asked respondents to enter a number between 0 

and 100. The results in Figures 12 and 13 summarize the number of federal defenders and 

CJA district panel representatives who reported such requests, by number of defendant/offenders who made such requests. As the results demonstrate, many more defense 

attorneys report requests for court documents than requests to seal all or part of a 

CM/ECF docket. When we total the number of defendants/offenders requesting court 

documents, we find 1,941 requests, likely a low number given the frequency with which 

defense counsel reported “100 defendants” (the maximum permitted by the question 

format). Defense counsel also reported a total of 704 defendants/offenders requesting 

sealing all or part of their CM/ECF dockets.
22 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Figure 12. Frequency of Requests for Court Documents

Figure 13. Frequency of Request for Docketing Sealing

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 12 15 18 20 24 25 30 40 50 60 75 99 100

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

.UMBEROF$EFENDANTS2EQUESTING#OURT$OCUMENTS

$EFENDERS0ANEL2EPRESENTATIVES/FFICES/NLY

&REQUENCYOF2ESPONSE

0 1 2 3 5 6 8 10 12 15 20 50 99 100

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

.UMBEROF$EFENDANTS2EQUESTING3EALING!LLOR0ARTOF4HEIR

$OCKETS$EFENDERS0ANEL2EPRESENTATIVES/FFICES/NLY

&REQUENCYOF2ESPONSE
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 23

Withdrawing or refusing cooperation

Both defense and prosecuting attorneys answered two questions about the frequency with 

which, in the past three years, defendants/offenders and witnesses withdrew offers of cooperation, or refused cooperation, because of actual or threatened harm. Once again, we asked 

respondents to report a number between 0 and 100. Figures 14 and 15 report the number of 

respondents who reported defendant/offender withdrawal or refusal of cooperation, and 

Figures 16 and 17 report the same information for witnesses. The number of defendants/offenders withdrawing offers ranged from a low of 197 (reported by U.S. Attorney’s 

Offices) to a high of 247 (reported by defenders and panel representative’s offices). The 

number of defendants/offenders refusing cooperation ranged from a low of 527 (U.S. Attorney’s Offices) to a high of 758 (defenders and panel representative’s offices). Respondents reported the number of witnesses withdrawing offers of cooperation less often. U.S. 

Attorney’s Offices reported 174 withdrawals while defender and panel representative’s offices reported 192 instances of witnesses withdrawing offers of cooperation. Respondents reported witnesses refusing to cooperate more frequently than withdrawing offers. The number of witnesses refusing cooperation ranged from a low of 364 instances (defender and 

panel representative’s offices) to a high of 467 instances (U.S. Attorney’s Offices).

Figure 14. Frequency of Defendants Withdrawing Cooperation

$EFENDER0ANEL2EP 53!TTORNEY

0 1 2 3 5 6 10 30 50 99 0 1 2 3 5 9 10 12 20 25 30

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

.UMBEROF$EFENDANTS 7ITHDRAWING/FFERSOF#OOPERATION

&REQUENCYOF2ESPONSE
24 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Figure 15. Frequency of Defendants Refusing Cooperation

Figure 16. Frequency of Witnesses Withdrawing Cooperation

$EFENDER0ANEL2EP 53!TTORNEY

0 1 2 3 4 5 8 10 15 20 25 30 40 50 100 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 10 11 15 16 20 25 39 45 50

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

.UMBEROF$EFENDANTS2EFUSING/FFERSOF#OOPERATION

&REQUENCYOF2ESPONSE

$EFENDER0ANEL2EP 53!TTORNEY

                  























.UMBEROF 7ITNESSES7ITHDRAWING/FFERSOF#OOPERATION

&REQUENCYOF2ESPONSE
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 25

Figure 17. Frequency of Witnesses Refusing Cooperation

Comparing the frequency of harm or threat in 2014 to 2013

We asked all respondent groups to compare the frequency with which defendants/offenders and witnesses were harmed in 2014 compared to 2013. Table 9 reports the 

results, but they should be interpreted with caution. The vast majority of respondents, 

across all groups, were unable to provide a comparison, choosing “I don’t know” over all 

other options. Of the substantive categories, respondents most often reported the frequency of harm being about the same in 2014 compared with 2013. Given that respondents clearly did not have trouble remembering instances of harm, or the details of such 

harm, their inability to compare two years is more likely the result of the wording of the 

question or the difficulty of the task (for a question at the end of the survey) than a lack of 

harm one year to the next. The results should be read with these caveats in mind.

Table 9. Comparing the Frequency of Harm or Threat, 2014 to 2013, by Group

Respondents

Higher in 

2014

About the 

Same in 

2014

Lower in 

2014

I don’t 

know/missing Total

Judges 32 147 15 480 674

Defenders/Panel 

Representative’s Offices

10 44 5 67 126

U.S. Attorney’s Offices 14 32 3 13 62

Chief Probation and 

Pretrial Services Offices

11 32 8 58 109

$EFENDER0ANEL2EP 53!TTORNEY

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 10 15 20 35 100 0 1 2 3 4 5 8 10 11 20 25 50 100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

.UMBEROF 7ITNESSES2EFUSING/FFERSOF#OOPERATION

&REQUENCYOF2ESPONSE
26 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

District steps to protect cooperating information

One final question on the survey, asked only of chief district judges, attempted to uncover 

actions taken by districts to protect cooperator information. The list of options provided 

(shown below) allowed respondents to choose multiple items. Table 10 shows the frequency with which chief district judges reported their courts taking these steps. No one 

chose “none of the above” and relatively few chose to specify an “Other” option, suggesting the categories covered the majority of steps taken by districts to protect information 

about cooperators. 

Clearly the most common action taken by the district courts has been, at the request 

of parties, to seal documents containing cooperation information; sixty-six of the seventyseven chief district judges who completed the questionnaire said their district had taken 

this action. Nearly half of the respondents also reported that their district seals, sua sponte, 

documents containing cooperation information and/or makes criminal documents appear identically on CM/ECF to obscure cooperation information. The other specific actions are less frequently used, as shown in Table 10. (We report the specified “Other” options in Appendix H.)

Table 10. District Efforts to Protect Cooperation Information

Method of Protecting Cooperation Information

Frequency of 

Selection

Making criminal cases appear identically on CM/ECF to obscure 

cooperation information (such as requiring filing sealed supplements 

with a plea agreement)

33

Sealing documents containing cooperation information sua sponte 37

Sealing documents containing cooperation information at the request of 

the parties

66

Ordering parties to redact cooperation information from documents 19

Restricting remote access of documents containing cooperation 

information

29

Allowing public access of documents containing cooperation 

information only in the courthouse or clerk’s office

9

Removing documents containing cooperation information from public 

files

19

Requiring the entry of documents containing cooperation to be private 

entries in CM/ECF

21

Other (please specify) ____________________ 7

None of the above 0
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 27

Open-ended comments summary

At the end of the survey, respondents were offered an opportunity to provide additional 

comments. Over a third of all respondents chose to make additional comments, and they 

covered a wide range of topics. We read the content of these comments and found we 

could group them into twelve different categories. Comments that were especially lengthy 

or detailed were coded into multiple categories, with no comment falling into more than 

six categories. Table 11 below shows the frequency of comments in each category. For 

those categories where comments could take a negative tone, instead of the positive or 

affirmative tone implied by the category, the number of negative comments is reported 

below the main category heading.

Table 11. Open-Ended Comment Coding

Coding of Comments Frequency

General comment about the frequency of harm

 Harm is not frequent

148

15

General comments about the sources to identify cooperator

 Court documents were not the source

106

4

Details about a specific incident 96

Nothing to report 85

Procedures for protecting defendants 81

General comment about harm in prison/prison culture 76

Takes issue with the survey12 33

Policy comments

 Concerns about a national judiciary policy

29

7

Comments about refusal to cooperate out of fear

 Refusals out of fear do not occur

27

1

Procedures to protect witnesses 15

“Missing” 2

Procedures for protecting juries 1

Some categories required no additional coding for tone or nuance. For example, if a respondent provided additional information about an already reported event, or chose to 

add information about additional instances of harm, the comment was coded into the 

category for “details about a specific incident.” Likewise, when respondents reported spe-

 

12. While most of the survey comments reported more information about the scope of harm or the policy implications of harm or threat, some respondents used the open-ended comments to take issue with the 

use of a survey to determine the scope of the problem, or to complain about the upper bound on the number 

of people they could report. Overall, these comments could be categorized as suggesting that the harm occurring is more than they were able to report in the survey. 
28 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

cific procedures for protecting defendants, juries, or witnesses, we coded the comment 

into those categories. The comments falling into the four categories of details about incidents, or procedures to protect defendants, witnesses, or juries, provided interesting information about what has happened in the past, and how districts have worked to overcome these problems. Typically the procedures to protect defendants or witnesses included sealing, either as a general principle or by local rule, or obscuring docket entries, including substituting revised plea agreements for the original, or discussing cooperation in 

a court proceeding rather than through written motions.

Other categories, however, required some additional clarification. Comments about 

the frequency of harm, for example, could either suggest that harm or threats were frequent or infrequent. Of the 148 comments about the frequency of threat or harm in the 

district, only 15 suggested that harm or threats were infrequent (eight judges, five defenders, one U.S. Attorney’s Office, and one chief probation and pretrial services office). At 

times the respondents noted that harm was infrequent because of recent steps taken by 

the district to better protect cooperation information. Other times, respondents were noting that harm to a specific group, such as witnesses, was infrequent. Lastly, respondents 

also noted they did not have or were not likely to be told of such threats, so they thought 

such instances were infrequent. Of course, the 85 respondents who specifically said they 

had nothing to report, because they didn’t have criminal cases, could be included with 

other respondents who said harm was infrequent based on their experience. Nonetheless, 

even after combining “nothing to report” with the 15 respondents who said harm was 

infrequent, the tone of the comments overall would still suggest respondents found harm 

to be frequent rather than infrequent.

The remaining 133 respondents who said harm was frequent used words such as “often,” “every,” “many,” “most,” “all,” or “the vast majority,” to describe how often cooperators were threatened, explicitly or implicitly, with harm or were victims of harm. Several of these respondents noted that the problems of threat and harm to cooperators are 

especially pronounced in drug and gang cases, as well as in certain geographic communities. Overall, when respondents were noting the frequency with which harm or threat occurred, they found it to be pervasive.

Comments about the sources used to identify cooperators typically provided information about which court documents were most likely to identify a cooperator, including 

those most frequently demanded in federal prisons when a new inmate joins a facility 

(discussed below). In fact, only 4 of 106 comments about sources used to identify cooperators explicitly said that court documents or docket activity were not used (three chief 

probation and pretrial services offices and one judge). The remaining 102 comments either mentioned a court document (the most common outcome) or were neutral with respect to court documents but focused on another source to identify a cooperator, typically the details of a specific incident. Those comments that did not explicitly mention court 

documents focused instead on other sources for identifying cooperators including “social 

media,” “rats.com,” “YouTube,” or more generally “the internet.” Of course, talk within a 

community, newspapers, movement in and out of the prison, and prior knowledge of the 

cooperator were also mentioned as sources of identification.

A final category of comments meriting further consideration was policy comments 

made by respondents. The twenty-nine respondents offering specific policy comments

covered two dimensions. First are those who commented on whether a national policy 

was necessary or not. Seven of the twenty-nine respondents made comments about a na-
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 29

tional judiciary policy that could be considered negative in tone (four judges and three 

defenders). Included in this group were respondents’ explicitly negative comments, such 

as “the need for blanket rules . . . is a canard,” as well as more cautionary comments, such 

as “be sensitive to the public right to know.” Other policy comments were more positive, 

suggesting a need for policy, though four suggested that this was an issue for the Department of Justice (DOJ) or, more specifically, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to address (three 

judges and one chief probation and pretrial services office). For instance, one respondent 

noted that the DOJ and the U.S. Attorney’s Office do not consider protection of cooperators to be a priority, but they should. One comment noted that past efforts to work with 

BOP on this issue had not been successful. Seventeen other respondents suggested there 

was a need for national policy, made by the judiciary, or that the judiciary should do 

“something” about the issue. One judicial respondent’s comment combined both elements, suggesting that this was a DOJ/BOP issue about which the judiciary needed to be 

concerned and take action.

Overall, while specific policy comments were rare, relative to the other types of comments provided, their tone could be categorized as suggesting a need for something to be 

done to protect cooperators. This is especially true if we consider all the comments as a 

group. In addition to the policy comments noted above, seventy-six respondents spoke 

about life in prison for cooperators, or prison culture in general, clearly noting a problem

where there is an expectation of harm in prison for those who do cooperate or are unable 

to prove that they did not. These respondents consistently told a story of new inmates

reporting to a specific individual (the “shot caller”) in the prison and being required to

provide their “paperwork” within a few weeks of coming to prison. If the inmates for any 

reason were unable to prove they were not a cooperator, they were told to request protective custody. These concerns prompted inmates to request their docket information, or 

(in the case of those who did cooperate) go so far as to request fake documents to protect 

them in prison.

Moreover, the general comments about the frequency of harm more often suggested

that threat or harm was a frequent occurrence, and this was true even after including in 

our count those respondents who said they had nothing to report. Further, the steps reported for protecting defendants, witnesses, and (in one case) juries, suggest that the concerns about harm are real enough for districts to make affirmative steps to better protect 

cooperators from harm. Despite these efforts, respondents noted that there continue to be 

problems. The fear of being harmed or threatened is affecting the willingness of defendants and witnesses to cooperate, a comment made by 26 respondents (with one defender/panel representative’s office as the exception). Taken as a whole, but certainly not 

unanimously, the open-ended comments support the results reported above: harm is occurring, court documents are often the sources for identifying cooperators, and this is a 

problem for the criminal justice system.

Conclusion

To answer the question of how often cooperators, both defendants/offenders and witnesses, 

were harmed, we surveyed federal district judges, U.S. Attorney’s Offices, the offices of the 

federal defenders and CJA district panel representatives, and chief probation and pretrial 

services offices. With a 71% response rate, and representation from all 94 judicial districts, 

we are confident that the reported results are representative of the harm experienced by 
30 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

witnesses and defendants/offenders in the past three years. These groups reported a substantial amount of harm. Overall, respondents reported a minimum of 571 cases involving 

harm or threat. These instances of harm involved a minimum of 381 defendants/offenders 

and 292 witnesses; often, both were involved in the same case. Respondents reported a minimum of an additional 236 defendants/offenders and 301 witnesses harmed, but limits 

placed on the survey prevent us from knowing the details of such harm.

Respondents reported that the nature of harm or threat to defendants/offenders and 

witnesses was largely the same. Threats of physical harm and threats to friends or family 

occurred most frequently, and many respondents reported multiple types of threat made 

against the same defendant/offender or witness. It is worth noting, however, that defendants/offenders were more likely to be subject to multiple types of threat than witnesses were, 

though this difference could be the result of the availability of the information to our respondent groups. 

We found, not surprisingly, that the location differed for defendants/offenders and witnesses when harmed or threatened. Defendants were most often in some form of custody 

(pretrial detention, pretrial release, or incarceration) while witnesses were not likely to be in 

custody, or, if they were in custody, they were in pretrial detention as a codefendant. 

The sources for identifying cooperation by defendants/offenders and witnesses also differed somewhat, according to our respondents. While court documents and proceedings 

were overwhelmingly the source for identifying both types of cooperators, the specific 

sources are different. Defendants/offenders were identified in plea agreements, 5K1.1 motions, or through general docketing practices, especially the presence of a number of sealed 

CM/ECF docket entries or a sentencing reduction. Respondents also reported discovery and 

testimony as common sources for identifying defendant/offender cooperators. We found 

that witnesses, while also identified through court documents, were often identified through 

witness lists, because they give testimony in open court, or through discovery. 

Respondents also reported on the willingness of defendants/offenders and witnesses to 

provide cooperating information. Defense attorneys as well as prosecutors reported that, in 

the past three years, hundreds of defendants/offenders and witnesses withdrew offers of cooperation and refused cooperation out of concerns about harm or threat. These results are 

echoed in the open-ended comments of these two groups as well. Concerns about harm are 

so real defendants requested court documents to prove they were not a cooperator over 

1,900 times in the past three years.

While respondents were able to report on specific instances of harm or threat in the 

past three years, they were largely unable to compare the amount of harm in 2014 to 

2013. When they did answer, they reported similar levels of harm across the two years. 

The final question, asked of chief district judges, sought to identify policy changes 

that might be considered to protect cooperating defendants/offenders and witnesses. As 

reported by respondents, the district courts have adopted a number of measures in an 

attempt to protect cooperators. Among these measures is the sealing of docket entries 

such as plea agreements, often sua sponte, to shield cooperation information. Some districts have taken the additional step of docketing all criminal cases the same way—for example, docketing blank sealed documents where no cooperation occurred. Respondents’ 

answers to questions about sources used to identify cooperators, especially defendants/offenders, raise questions about the effectiveness of such steps. Although sealing 

documents may seem like a logical solution to protecting information about cooperators, 

the presence of sealed documents and gaps in docket sequence numbers by themselves are 
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 31

considered enough by other inmates to identify cooperators and put them at risk of harm. 

The open-ended comments describe this phenomenon in detail. In these comments, respondents noted the problems inherent in sealing and made additional suggestions for 

protecting cooperating information, including a separate filing system for the public from 

that used by the courts. A small set of comments questioned the need for any policy for 

protecting cooperator information, as well as raising issues of public access to court documents and proceedings. We include all these suggestions in Appendix I.

Though the direction that policy should take is not clear from the information provided in this survey, the scope of the problem is. Respondents reported a substantial 

amount of harm, to both defendants and witnesses, resulting from use of court documents to identify cooperators. The problem occurs both during criminal prosecutions 

and once defendants (whether they cooperated or not) begin serving sentences in BOP 

and other facilities. Efforts to protect cooperating information, while in some instances 

successful, have not eliminated the problem of harm to cooperators. While respondents 

recognized that limiting access to these court documents would not completely eliminate 

harm to cooperators, there was general agreement that something needed to be done—by 

the judiciary, BOP, or both—to better protect cooperating information and reduce the 

risk of harm to defendants and witnesses assisting in criminal prosecutions.

Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 33

Appendix A: Survey Invitation and Questionnaires

Dear ${m://Title} ${m://LastName}:

There is a growing concern that information contained in publicly accessible court 

documents is being used to threaten or harm defendants in criminal cases because of their 

cooperation or suspected cooperation with the government. Some courts have 

already acted in a variety of ways to safeguard such documents.

We write as the chairs of three Judicial Conference Committees to ask for your help in 

collecting information that will assist our committees in making an important policy 

decision – whether to propose to the Judicial Conference the establishment of national 

procedures for protecting information in court documents indicating a defendant’s 

cooperation, or intent to cooperate, with the government.

In an effort to measure the extent of this problem, we have asked the Federal Judicial 

Center to conduct a survey on our behalf to gather information on threats of harm to, or 

actual harm suffered by, defendants and witnesses in criminal cases because they were 

actual or suspected cooperators with the government.

District judges, federal prosecutors and defenders, CJA district panel representatives, and 

chief probation and pre-trial officers are being surveyed.

When you click on the link below, you will connect to the survey. It will provide 

important information about how to respond. Please be assured that all survey responses 

will be confidential and reported to the committees only in the aggregate.

Thank you for your time. Your participation is greatly appreciated. Click on the link 

below to begin the survey. Please complete the survey by March 17th, 2015.

Sincerely,

Wm. Terrell Hodges, Chair

Court Administration and Case Management Committee

Irene M. Keeley, Chair

Criminal Law Committee

Catherine C. Blake, Chair

Defender Services Committee

Follow this link to the Survey:

${l://SurveyLink?d=Take the Survey}

Or copy and paste the URL below into your internet browser:

${l://SurveyURL}
34 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Cooperators - Chief District Judges Preview

Survey Instructions 

Scope of the Survey. This survey asks about information you may have received regarding 

harm or threats of harm to defendants or witnesses on your docket because of their actual 

or perceived cooperation with the government. Please consider only defendants or witnesses from cases on your docket, not those of a colleague, and report information you 

consider to be reliable. Please consider only instances of harm or threats of harm from 

cases on your docket in the last three years. 

Definition of “Harm.” “Harm” refers to: 

• Actual or threats of economic harm 

• Actual or threats of physical harm 

• Murder 

suffered by a defendant or witness (or their friends or family), inflicted by a third party in 

retaliation for cooperating (or for being suspected of cooperating) with the government. Harm can occur at any point in a case, from pre-trial through conviction or acquittal or any time thereafter. 

Confidentiality. All survey responses will be kept confidential and results will be reported 

only in the aggregate. Please do not identify any defendant or witness by name. 

Who to Contact. If you have any questions about the study, you may contact any of the 

three committee chairs or Dr. Margaret Williams, who is directing the study. If you have 

questions about the items in this survey, or technical problems with the questionnaire, 

Dr. Williams can be reached at 202-502-4080 or mwilliams@fjc.gov. 
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 35

In cases on your docket over the past three years, have you learned of any defendants 

and/or witnesses who were harmed or threatened (including harm or threats to friends or 

family) because of the defendant’s or witness’ cooperation with the government?

m Yes

m No

m I can’t recall

Please think about the cases from the last three years for which you have the most information about actual harm or threats of harm to defendants or witnesses (or their friends 

or family). This questionnaire asks a series of questions on up to five cases from your 

docket. While you may not have all the information on each case, please answer as many 

questions as you can to provide a complete picture of the harm or threats of harm to each 

person.

[NOTE THIS SECTION WILL REPEAT UP TO FIVE TIMES.]

Thinking about the first case, who was harmed or threatened with harm? (Check all that 

apply)

q Defendant

q Witness

Did the defendant experience any of the following types of harm or threats? (Choose one 

per row)

Yes No Have no knowledge

Threats of economic 

harm m m m

Actual economic 

harm m m m

Threats of physical 

harm m m m

Actual physical harm m m m

Murder m m m

Threats to friends or 

family m m m

Actual harm to 

friends or family m m m

Other (please specify) m m m
36 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

When the defendant was harmed or threatened, he/she was... (Choose one per row)

Yes No Have no knowledge

in pre-trial detention m m m

on pre-trial release m m m

incarcerated postconviction m m m

in an RRC or halfway 

house m m m

on probation or supervised release m m m

elsewhere (please 

specify) m m m

Did the defendant request protective custody or placement in a special housing unit?

m Yes

m No

m I can’t recall

Did the defendant receive protective custody or placement in a special housing unit?

m Yes

m No

m I can’t recall

Were any of the following court documents used to identify the defendant as a cooperator 

(or suspected cooperator) with the government? (Choose one per row)

Yes No Have no knowledge

Judicial opinion m m m

Rule 35(b) motion m m m

§ 5K1.1 motion testimony/transcript m m m

Plea agreement or plea 

supplement m m m

Sentencing memorandum m m m

Other (please specify) m m m
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 37

Did the witness experience any of the following types of harm or threats? (Choose one per 

row)

Yes No Have no knowledge

Threats of economic 

harm m m m

Actual economic 

harm m m m

Threats of physical 

harm m m m

Actual physical harm m m m

Murder m m m

Threats to friends or 

family m m m

Actual harm to 

friends or family m m m

Other (please specify) m m m

When the witness was harmed or threatened, he/she was... (Choose one per row)

Yes No Have no knowledge

in pre-trial detention m m m

on pre-trial release m m m

incarcerated postconviction m m m

in an RRC or halfway 

house m m m

on probation or supervised release m m m

elsewhere (please 

specify) m m m
38 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Were any of the following court documents used to identify the witness as a cooperator 

(or suspected cooperator) with the government? (Choose one per row)

Yes No Have no knowledge

Judicial opinion m m m

Rule 35(b) motion m m m

§ 5K1.1 motion testimony/transcript m m m

Plea agreement or plea 

supplement m m m

Sentencing memorandum m m m

Other (please specify) m m m

Are there other cases on your docket from the past three years in which you learned of a 

defendant or witness being harmed or threatened?

m Yes

m No

m I can’t recall

[NOTE: THIS IS THE END OF THE REPEATING SECTION]

Not including the defendants regarding whom you’ve provided information in this survey, how many more defendants from cases on your docket have you learned were 

harmed or threatened in the past three years?

Not including the witnesses regarding whom you’ve provided information in this survey, 

how many more witnesses from cases on your docket have you learned were harmed or 

threatened in the past three years?

Was the number of defendants and/or witnesses harmed or threatened due to perceived 

or actual cooperation with the government higher or lower in 2014 compared to 2013?

m Higher in 2014

m About the same in 2014

m Lower in 2014

m I don’t know
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 39

To the best of your knowledge, what steps, if any, has your district taken to better protect 

cooperation information in court documents? (Check all that apply)

q Making criminal cases appear identically on CM/ECF to obscure cooperation information (such as requiring filing sealed supplements with a plea agreement)

q Sealing documents containing cooperation information sua sponte

q Sealing documents containing cooperation information at the request of the parties

q Ordering parties to redact cooperation information from documents

q Restricting remote access of documents containing cooperation information

q Allowing public access of documents containing cooperation information only in the 

courthouse or clerk’s office

q Removing documents containing cooperation information from public files

q Requiring the entry of documents containing cooperation to be private entries in 

CM/ECF

q Other (please specify) ____________________

q None of the above

Please use the space below to provide any additional information about harm or threats of 

harm experienced by defendants and/or witnesses (or their family or friends) from cases 

on your docket in the past three years.
40 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Cooperators - District Judges Preview

Survey Instructions 

Scope of the Survey. This survey asks about information you may have received regarding 

harm or threats of harm to defendants or witnesses on your docket because of their actual 

or perceived cooperation with the government. Please consider only defendants or witnesses from cases on your docket, not those of a colleague, and report information you 

consider to be reliable. Please consider only instances of harm or threats of harm from 

cases on your docket in the last three years. 

Definition of “Harm.” “Harm” refers to: 

• Actual or threats of economic harm 

• Actual or threats of physical harm 

• Murder 

suffered by a defendant or witness (or their friends or family), inflicted by a third party in 

retaliation for cooperating (or for being suspected of cooperating) with the government. Harm can occur at any point in a case, from pre-trial through conviction or acquittal or any time thereafter. 

Confidentiality. All survey responses will be kept confidential and results will be reported 

only in the aggregate. Please do not identify any defendant or witness by name. 

Who to Contact. If you have any questions about the study, you may contact any of the 

three committee chairs or Dr. Margaret Williams, who is directing the study. If you have 

questions about the items in this survey, or technical problems with the questionnaire, 

Dr. Williams can be reached at 202-502-4080 or mwilliams@fjc.gov. 
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 41

In cases on your docket over the past three years, have you learned of any defendants 

and/or witnesses who were harmed or threatened (including harm or threats to friends or 

family) because of the defendant’s or witness’ cooperation with the government?

m Yes

m No

m I can’t recall

Please think about the cases from the last three years for which you have the most information about actual harm or threats of harm to defendants or witnesses (or their friends 

or family). This questionnaire asks a series of questions on up to five cases from your 

docket. While you may not have all the information on each case, please answer as many 

questions as you can to provide a complete picture of the harm or threats of harm to each 

person.

[NOTE THIS SECTION WILL REPEAT UP TO FIVE TIMES.]

Thinking about the first case, who was harmed or threatened with harm? (Check all that 

apply)

q Defendant

q Witness

Did the defendant experience any of the following types of harm or threats? (Choose one 

per row)

Yes No Have no knowledge

Threats of economic 

harm m m m

Actual economic 

harm m m m

Threats of physical 

harm m m m

Actual physical harm m m m

Murder m m m

Threats to friends or 

family m m m

Actual harm to 

friends or family m m m

Other (please specify) m m m
42 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

When the defendant was harmed or threatened, he/she was... (Choose one per row)

Yes No Have no knowledge

in pre-trial detention m m m

on pre-trial release m m m

incarcerated postconviction m m m

in an RRC or halfway 

house m m m

on probation or supervised release m m m

elsewhere (please 

specify) m m m

Did the defendant request protective custody or placement in a special housing unit?

m Yes

m No

m I can’t recall

Did the defendant receive protective custody or placement in a special housing unit?

m Yes

m No

m I can’t recall

Were any of the following court documents used to identify the defendant as a cooperator 

(or suspected cooperator) with the government? (Choose one per row)

Yes No Have no knowledge

Judicial opinion m m m

Rule 35(b) motion m m m

§ 5K1.1 motion testimony/transcript m m m

Plea agreement or plea 

supplement m m m

Sentencing memorandum m m m

Other (please specify) m m m
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 43

Did the witness experience any of the following types of harm or threats? (Choose one per 

row)

Yes No Have no knowledge

Threats of economic 

harm m m m

Actual economic 

harm

m m m

Threats of physical 

harm m m m

Actual physical harm m m m

Murder m m m

Threats to friends or 

family m m m

Actual harm to 

friends or family m m m

Other (please specify) m m m

When the witness was harmed or threatened, he/she was... (Choose one per row)

Yes No Have no knowledge

in pre-trial detention m m m

on pre-trial release m m m

incarcerated postconviction m m m

in an RRC or halfway 

house m m m

on probation or supervised release m m m

elsewhere (please 

specify) m m m
44 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Were any of the following court documents used to identify the witness as a cooperator 

(or suspected cooperator) with the government? (Choose one per row)

Yes No Have no knowledge

Judicial opinion m m m

Rule 35(b) motion m m m

§ 5K1.1 motion testimony/transcript m m m

Plea agreement or plea 

supplement m m m

Sentencing memorandum m m m

Other (please specify) m m m

Are there other cases on your docket from the past three years in which you learned of a 

defendant or witness being harmed or threatened?

m Yes

m No

m I can’t recall

[NOTE THIS IS THE END OF THE REPEATING SECTION]

Not including the defendants regarding whom you’ve provided information in this survey, how many more defendants from cases on your docket have you learned were 

harmed or threatened in the past three years?

Not including the witnesses regarding whom you’ve provided information in this survey, 

how many more witnesses from cases on your docket have you learned were harmed or 

threatened in the past three years?

Was the number of defendants and/or witnesses harmed or threatened due to perceived 

or actual cooperation with the government higher or lower in 2014 compared to 2013?

m Higher in 2014

m About the same in 2014

m Lower in 2014

m I don’t know

Please use the space below to provide any additional information about harm or threats of 

harm experienced by defendants and/or witnesses (or their family or friends) from cases 

on your docket in the past three years.
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 45

Cooperators - Federal Defenders and CJA Panel Representatives Preview

Survey Instructions 

Scope of the Survey. This survey asks about information you may have received regarding 

harm or threats of harm to defendants or witnesses because of their actual or perceived 

cooperation with the government. Please consider only defendants or witnesses from your 

cases, not those of a colleague, and report information you or your staff consider to be 

reliable. Please consider only instances of harm or threats of harm from cases in the last 

three years. We ask that you coordinate the responses among the members of your office 

to create a single response for the entire office. Please do not forward the survey link. 

Definition of “Harm.” “Harm” refers to: 

• Actual or threats of economic harm 

• Actual or threats of physical harm 

• Murder 

suffered by a defendant or witness (or their friends or family), inflicted by a third party in 

retaliation for cooperating (or for being suspected of cooperating) with the government. Harm can occur at any point in a case, from pre-trial through conviction or acquittal or any time thereafter. 

Confidentiality. All survey responses will be kept confidential and results will be reported 

only in the aggregate. Please do not identify any defendant or witness by name. 

Who to Contact. If you have any questions about the study or technical problems with 

the questionnaire, please contact Dr. Margaret Williams at 202-502-4080 or 

mwilliams@fjc.gov. 
46 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

In your cases over the past three years, have you learned of any defendants and/or witnesses who were harmed or threatened (including harm or threats to friends or family) 

because of the defendant’s or witness’ cooperation with the government?

m Yes

m No

m I can’t recall

Please think about the cases from the last three years for which you have the most information about actual harm or threats of harm to defendants or witnesses (or their friends 

or family). This questionnaire asks a series of questions on up to five cases. While you 

may not have all the information on each case, please answer as many questions as you 

can to provide a complete picture of the harm or threats of harm to each person.

[NOTE THIS SECTION WILL REPEAT UP TO FIVE TIMES.]

Thinking about the first case, who was harmed or threatened with harm? (Check all that 

apply)

q Defendant

q Witness

Did the defendant experience any of the following types of harm or threats? (Choose one 

per row)

Yes No Have no knowledge

Threats of economic 

harm m m m

Actual economic 

harm m m m

Threats of physical 

harm m m m

Actual physical harm m m m

Murder m m m

Threats to friends or 

family m m m

Actual harm to 

friends or family m m m

Other (please specify) m m m
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 47

When the defendant was harmed or threatened, he/she was... (Choose one per row)

Yes No Have no knowledge

in pre-trial detention m m m

on pre-trial release m m m

incarcerated postconviction m m m

in an RRC or halfway 

house m m m

on probation or supervised release m m m

elsewhere (please 

specify) m m m

Did the defendant request protective custody or placement in a special housing unit?

m Yes

m No

m I can’t recall

Did the defendant receive protective custody or placement in a special housing unit?

m Yes

m No

m I can’t recall

Were any of the following court documents used to identify the defendant as a cooperator 

(or suspected cooperator) with the government? (Choose one per row)

Yes No Have no knowledge

Judicial opinion m m m

Rule 35(b) motion m m m

§ 5K1.1 motion testimony/transcript m m m

Plea agreement or plea 

supplement m m m

Sentencing memorandum m m m

Other (please specify) m m m
48 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Did the witness experience any of the following types of harm or threats? (Choose one per 

row)

Yes No Have no knowledge

Threats of economic 

harm m m m

Actual economic 

harm m m m

Threats of physical 

harm m m m

Actual physical harm m m m

Murder m m m

Threats to friends or 

family m m m

Actual harm to 

friends or family m m m

Other (please specify) m m m

When the witness was harmed or threatened, he/she was... (Choose one per row)

Yes No Have no knowledge

in pre-trial detention m m m

on pre-trial release m m m

incarcerated postconviction m m m

in an RRC or halfway 

house m m m

on probation or supervised release m m m

elsewhere (please 

specify) m m m
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 49

Were any of the following court documents used to identify the witness as a cooperator 

(or suspected cooperator) with the government? (Choose one per row)

Yes No Have no knowledge

Judicial opinion m m m

Rule 35(b) motion m m m

§ 5K1.1 motion testimony/transcript m m m

Plea agreement or plea 

supplement m m m

Sentencing memorandum m m m

Other (please specify) m m m

Are there other cases from the past three years in which you learned of a defendant or 

witness being harmed or threatened?

m Yes

m No

m I can’t recall

[NOTE: THIS IS THE END OF THE REPEATING SECTION]

Not including the defendants regarding whom you’ve provided information in this survey, how many more defendants from your cases have you learned were harmed or 

threatened in the past three years?

Not including the witnesses regarding whom you’ve provided information in this survey, 

how many more witnesses from your cases have you learned were harmed or threatened 

in the past three years?

In the past three years, how many defendants, because of actual or threatened harm, requested case information (CM/ECF docket, pre-sentence report, etc.) to prove they were 

not a cooperator?

In the past three years, how many defendants, because of actual or threatened harm, requested all or part of their CM/ECF docket be sealed?

In the past three years, how many defendants withdrew offers of cooperation because of 

actual or threatened harm?
50 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

In the past three years, how many defendants refused cooperation because of actual or 

threatened harm?

In the past three years, how many witnesses withdrew offers of cooperation because of 

actual or threatened harm?

In the past three years, how many witnesses refused cooperation because of actual or 

threatened harm?

Was the number of defendants and/or witnesses harmed or threatened due to perceived 

or actual cooperation with the government higher or lower in 2014 compared to 2013?

m Higher in 2014

m About the same in 2014

m Lower in 2014

m I don’t know

Please use the space below to provide any additional information about harm or threats of 

harm experienced by defendants and/or witnesses (or their family or friends) from 

your cases in the past three years.
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 51

Cooperators - Probation/Pre-Trial Preview

Survey Instructions 

Scope of the Survey. This survey asks about information you may have received regarding 

harm or threats of harm to defendants/offenders or witnesses from your district because 

of their actual or perceived cooperation with the government. Please consider only defendants/offenders or witnesses from your district and report information you or 

your staff consider to be reliable. Please consider only instances of harm or threats of 

harm from cases from your district in the last three years. We ask that you coordinate the 

responses among the members of your office to create a single response for the entire office. Please do not forward the survey link. 

Definition of “Harm.” “Harm” refers to: 

• Actual or threats of economic harm 

• Actual or threats of physical harm 

• Murder 

suffered by a defendant/offender or witness (or their friends or family), inflicted by a 

third party in retaliation for cooperating (or for being suspected of cooperating) with the 

government. Harm can occur at any point in a case, from pre-trial through conviction or 

acquittal or any time thereafter. 

Confidentiality. All survey responses will be kept confidential and results will be reported 

only in the aggregate. Please do not identify any defendant/offender or witness by name. 

Who to Contact. If you have any questions about the study or technical problems with 

the questionnaire, please contact Dr. Margaret Williams at 202-502-4080 or 

mwilliams@fjc.gov.
52 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

In cases from your district over the past three years, have you learned of any defendants/offenders and/or witnesses who were harmed or threatened (including harm or 

threats to friends or family) because of the defendant/offender’s or witness’ cooperation 

with the government?

m Yes

m No

m I can’t recall

Please think about the cases from the last three years for which you have the most information about actual harm or threats of harm to defendants/offenders or witnesses (or 

their friends or family). This questionnaire asks a series of questions on up to five cases. 

While you may not have all the information on each case, please answer as many questions as you can to provide a complete picture of the harm or threats of harm to each person.

[NOTE THIS SECTION WILL REPEAT UP TO FIVE TIMES.]

Thinking about the first case, who was harmed or threatened with harm? (Check all that 

apply)

q Defendant/Offender

q Witness

Did the defendant/offender experience any of the following types of harm or threats? 

(Choose one per row)

Yes No Have no knowledge

Threats of economic 

harm m m m

Actual economic 

harm m m m

Threats of physical 

harm m m m

Actual physical harm m m m

Murder m m m

Threats to friends or 

family m m m

Actual harm to 

friends or family m m m

Other (please specify) m m m
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 53

When the defendant/offender was harmed or threatened, he/she was... (Choose one per 

row)

Yes No Have no knowledge

in pre-trial detention m m m

on pre-trial release m m m

incarcerated postconviction m m m

in an RRC or halfway 

house m m m

on probation or supervised release m m m

elsewhere (please 

specify) m m m

Did the defendant/offender request protective custody or placement in a special housing 

unit?

m Yes

m No

m I can’t recall

Did the defendant/offender receive protective custody or placement in a special housing 

unit?

m Yes

m No

m I can’t recall

Were any of the following court documents used to identify the defendant/offender as a 

cooperator (or suspected cooperator) with the government? (Choose one per row)

Yes No Have no knowledge

Judicial opinion m m m

Rule 35(b) motion m m m

§ 5K1.1 motion testimony/transcript m m m

Plea agreement or plea 

supplement m m m

Sentencing memorandum m m m

Other (please specify) m m m
54 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Did the witness experience any of the following types of harm or threats? (Choose one per 

row)

Yes No Have no knowledge

Threats of economic 

harm m m m

Actual economic 

harm m m m

Threats of physical 

harm m m m

Actual physical harm m m m

Murder m m m

Threats to friends or 

family m m m

Actual harm to 

friends or family m m m

Other (please specify) m m m

When the witness was harmed or threatened, he/she was... (Choose one per row)

Yes No Have no knowledge

in pre-trial detention m m m

on pre-trial release m m m

incarcerated postconviction m m m

in an RRC or halfway 

house m m m

on probation or supervised release m m m

elsewhere (please 

specify) m m m
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 55

Were any of the following court documents used to identify the witness as a cooperator 

(or suspected cooperator) with the government? (Choose one per row)

Yes No Have no knowledge

Judicial opinion m m m

Rule 35(b) motion m m m

§ 5K1.1 motion testimony/transcript m m m

Plea agreement or plea 

supplement m m m

Sentencing memorandum m m m

Other (please specify) m m m

Are there other cases from your district in the past three years in which you learned of a 

defendant or witness being harmed or threatened?

m Yes

m No

m I can’t recall

[NOTE: THIS IS THE END OF THE REPEATING SECTION]

Not including the defendants/offenders regarding whom you’ve provided information in 

this survey, how many more defendants/offenders from cases in your district have you 

learned were harmed or threatened in the past three years?

Not including the witnesses regarding whom you’ve provided information in this survey, 

how many more witnesses from cases in your district have you learned were harmed or

threatened in the past three years?

Was the number of defendants/offenders and/or witnesses harmed or threatened due to 

perceived or actual cooperation with the government higher or lower in 2014 compared 

to 2013?

m Higher in 2014

m About the same in 2014

m Lower in 2014

m I don’t know

Please use the space below to provide any additional information about harm or threats of 

harm experienced by defendants/offenders and/or witnesses (or their family or friends) 

from cases in your district in the past three years.
56 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Cooperators - U.S. Attorneys Preview

Survey Instructions 

Scope of the Survey. This survey asks about information you may have received regarding 

harm or threats of harm to defendants or witnesses because of their actual or perceived 

cooperation with the government. Please consider only defendants or witnesses from cases prosecuted by your office, not those of a colleague, and report information you consider to be reliable. Please consider only instances of harm or threats of harm from cases in 

the last three years. We ask that you coordinate the responses among the members of 

your office to create a single response for the entire office. Please do not forward the survey link. 

Definition of “Harm.” “Harm” refers to: 

• Actual or threats of economic harm 

• Actual or threats of physical harm 

• Murder 

suffered by a defendant or witness (or their friends or family), inflicted by a third party in 

retaliation for cooperating (or for being suspected of cooperating) with the government. Harm can occur at any point in a case, from pre-trial through conviction or acquittal or any time thereafter. 

Confidentiality. All survey responses will be kept confidential and results will be reported 

only in the aggregate. Please do not identify any defendant or witness by name. 

Who to Contact. If you have questions about the items in this survey, or technical problems with the questionnaire, please contact Dr. Margaret Williams at 202-502-4080 or 

mwilliams@fjc.gov. 
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 57

In cases prosecuted by your office over the past three years, have you learned of any defendants and/or witnesses who were harmed or threatened (including harm or threats to 

friends or family) because of the defendant’s or witness’ cooperation with the government?

m Yes

m No

m I can’t recall

Please think about the cases from the last three years for which you have the most information about actual harm or threats of harm to defendants or witnesses (or their friends 

or family). This questionnaire asks a series of questions on up to five cases. While you 

may not have all the information on each case, please answer as many questions as you 

can to provide a complete picture of the harm or threats of harm to each person.

[NOTE THIS SECTION WILL REPEAT UP TO FIVE TIMES.]

Thinking about the first case, who was harmed or threatened with harm? (Check all that 

apply)

q Defendant

q Witness

Did the defendant experience any of the following types of harm or threats? (Choose one 

per row)

Yes No Have no knowledge

Threats of economic 

harm m m m

Actual economic 

harm m m m

Threats of physical 

harm m m m

Actual physical harm m m m

Murder m m m

Threats to friends or 

family m m m

Actual harm to 

friends or family m m m

Other (please specify) m m m
58 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

When the defendant was harmed or threatened, he/she was... (Choose one per row)

Yes No Have no knowledge

in pre-trial detention m m m

on pre-trial release m m m

incarcerated postconviction m m m

in an RRC or halfway 

house m m m

on probation or supervised release m m m

elsewhere (please 

specify) m m m

Did the defendant request protective custody or placement in a special housing unit?

m Yes

m No

m I can’t recall

Did the defendant receive protective custody or placement in a special housing unit?

m Yes

m No

m I can’t recall

Were any of the following court documents used to identify the defendant as a cooperator 

(or suspected cooperator) with the government? (Choose one per row)

Yes No Have no knowledge

Judicial opinion m m m

Rule 35(b) motion m m m

§ 5K1.1 motion testimony/transcript m m m

Plea agreement or plea 

supplement m m m

Sentencing memorandum m m m

Other (please specify) m m m
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 59

Did the witness experience any of the following types of harm or threats? (Choose one per 

row)

Yes No Have no knowledge

Threats of economic 

harm m m m

Actual economic 

harm m m m

Threats of physical 

harm m m m

Actual physical harm m m m

Murder m m m

Threats to friends or 

family m m m

Actual harm to 

friends or family m m m

Other (please specify) m m m

When the witness was harmed or threatened, he/she was... (Choose one per row)

Yes No Have no knowledge

in pre-trial detention m m m

on pre-trial release m m m

incarcerated postconviction m m m

in an RRC or halfway 

house m m m

on probation or supervised release m m m

elsewhere (please 

specify) m m m
60 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Were any of the following court documents used to identify the witness as a cooperator 

(or suspected cooperator) with the government? (Choose one per row)

Yes No Have no knowledge

Judicial opinion m m m

Rule 35(b) motion m m m

§ 5K1.1 motion testimony/transcript m m m

Plea agreement or plea 

supplement m m m

Sentencing memorandum m m m

Other (please specify) m m m

Are there other cases prosecuted by your office in the past three years in which you 

learned of a defendant or witness being harmed or threatened?

m Yes

m No

m I can’t recall

[NOTE: THIS IS THE END OF THE REPEATING SECTION]

Not including the defendants regarding whom you’ve provided information in this survey, how many more defendants from cases prosecuted by your office have you learned 

were harmed or threatened in the past three years?

Not including the witnesses regarding whom you’ve provided information in this survey, 

how many more witnesses from cases prosecuted by your office have you learned were 

harmed or threatened in the past three years?

In the past three years, how many defendants withdrew offers of cooperation because of 

actual or threatened harm?

In the past three years, how many defendants refused cooperation because of actual or 

threatened harm?

In the past three years, how many witnesses withdrew offers of cooperation because of 

actual or threatened harm?

In the past three years, how many witnesses refused cooperation because of actual or 

threatened harm?
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 61

Was the number of defendants and/or witnesses harmed or threatened due to perceived 

or actual cooperation with the government higher or lower in 2014 compared to 2013?

m Higher in 2014

m About the same in 2014

m Lower in 2014

m I don’t know

Please use the space below to provide any additional information about harm or threats of 

harm experienced by defendants and/or witnesses (or their family or friends) from cases 

prosecuted by your office in the past three years.

Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 63

Appendix B: Other Types of Harm or Threat to Defendants

Categories of Other Harm Description

Property damage Animal

Property damage destruction of property

Property damage homes or automobiles [shot] at while occupied

Property damage property damage

Property damage The home that he and his family resided in was shot up a 

day before he was scheduled to testify

Property damage Family house shot at

Property damage Shot window out of residence

Property damage they burned his house down

Property damage Defendant’s home was fired upon by unknown individual.

Internet/community/general threats One offender [redacted] claims to have been shot at leaving 

the Residential Reentry Center after providing a drug test. 

A second [offender] [redacted] advised she had repeated 

threats at the gas station where [she worked] and on Facebook postings. A third offender [redacted] [is receiving] 

threats in the community and on [Facebook].

Internet/community/general threats isolation at prison due to threats

Internet/community/general threats made uncomfortable

Internet/community/general threats Potential threat due to offender at RRC testifying against 

another offender’s brother

Internet/community/general threats Believed he [cooperated] but did not and he continues to 

receive threats

Internet/community/general threats Although not physically harmed, defendant was physically 

grabbed when the threat was made against him.

Internet/community/general threats Defendant’s status as a cooperator was put on the internet.

Internet/community/general threats Flyers posted in his neighborhood that he cooperated.

Internet/community/general threats Name posted on Top Snitches Facebook page

Internet/community/general threats told family members to put his name on rats.com

Internet/community/general threats After testifying against co-defendants, intimidated via activity around home

Internet/community/general threats Note on floor [of] halfway house identifying defendant as 

cooperator

Internet/community/general threats person contacted offender’s mother at her residence and his 

wife, via Facebook, and make some veiled verbal threats 

and name calling
64 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories of Other Harm Description

Internet/community/general threats Intimidation; showed up at work and in the neighborhood

Internet/community/general threats veiled threats via text message

Internet/community/general threats Video / YouTube Rap Video Threat

Existing categories One offender [redacted] claims to have been shot at leaving 

the Residential Reentry Center after providing a drug test. 

A second [offender] [redacted] advised she had repeated 

threats at the gas station where [she worked] and on Facebook postings. A third offender [redacted] is receiving 

threats in the community and on [Facebook].

Existing categories Implications of cultural beliefs/acts that may harm defendant/offender and family

Existing categories Arson of mother’s house killed six people

Existing categories Shot 3 times

Existing categories [Threats] were made regarding the safety and welfare of 

defendant’s family members in [redacted]

Existing categories As with the last question answered, I have had multiple 

defendants in pretrial detention face threats for themselves 

or family members abroad if they proceeded to cooperate

Existing categories Cultural beliefs/acts that may harm defendant and family.

Existing categories In [immigration] drug cases routinely defendant and family 

are threats by drug lords

Existing categories was assaulted in the middle of trial testimony

Other Especially true in codefendants’ providing substantial assistance

Other threats to prosecution and defense counsel

Other [Missing Comment]

Other Media and Courtroom Testimony

Other relocated 4 times
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 65

Appendix C: Other Locations at the Time of Harm or Threat 

to Defendants

Categories of Other Locations Description

Not in custody of any kind after completion of imprisonment and supervised release

Not in custody of any kind less than a year following his termination of supervised release

Not in custody of any kind Not arrested

Not in custody of any kind not charged

Not in custody of any kind post conviction and [sentence]

Not in custody of any kind the defendant was harmed prior to being charged due to his 

cooperation

Not in custody of any kind Witness- out of custody

Not in custody of any kind not yet charged

Not in custody of any kind upon release

Not in custody of any kind one cooperator was uncharged at the time of the threat

Not in custody of any kind pre-arrest

Not in custody of any kind Prior to arrest - narc traffickers in [redacted]

Not in custody of any kind non-incarcerated family members in [redacted]

Other forms of custody pre sentencing release

Other forms of custody state custody on another charge

Other forms of custody witness protection program

Other forms of custody Threats were numerous, starting while on bond and continuing into time on probation.

Other forms of custody While awaiting sentencing.

Other forms of custody The defendant was arrested on new criminal charges.

Other forms of custody USMS lock-up pending a court proceeding

Other forms of custody Custody

Other forms of custody in [redacted] following deportation while on supervised 

release

Other forms of custody USMS lock-up pending court proceeding

Other During the course of the investigation

Other For family members none of these applies

Other I don’t remember
66 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories of Other Locations Description

Other defendant absconded pretrial release supervision and was 

living in [redacted]

Other the threat - made to defendant - was of harm to his himself 

or his family

Other [missing comment]

Other suspected cooperating witness during drug conspiracy
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 67

Appendix D: Other Sources to Identify Defendants

Categories of Other Sources Description

Suspicion After the target’s arrest, the defendant was suspected 

of cooperating. When the defendant was arrested 

(and in pre-trial detention) he was threatened. I 

took proactive steps to prevent disclosure of information during the court proceedings.

Suspicion co-defendant suspicion

Suspicion co-defendant [suspicions]

Suspicion Defendant in an [redacted] RICO gang case was 

suspected by other incarcerated gang members of 

cooperating with law enforcement as to the murder 

of a police officer, and he was stabbed in a federal 

detention facility.

Suspicion gossip

Suspicion gossip

Suspicion prison gossip

Suspicion rumor

Suspicion rumor of cooperation

Suspicion rumor of cooperation

Suspicion The Defendant was released with conditions and the 

co [defendants] were under the belief that anyone 

released was cooperating with the [government].

Suspicion word of mouth

Other court document/proceeding 302 report after debriefing

Other court document/proceeding a criminal complaint unsealed in a related case identified statements made by the defendant upon his 

arrest

Other court document/proceeding A plea agreement that was not filed and was presumed to include a substantial assistance provision 

because it was filed under seal

Other court document/proceeding a request letter to the judge to use the offender as an 

informant

Other court document/proceeding A tape recorded conversation between the D and the 

CI was disclosed in discovery. Other Defendants 

obtained a copy of that recorded call and threatened 

the D and her family as a result.

Other court document/proceeding affidavit
68 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories of Other Sources Description

Other court document/proceeding After live testimony

Other court document/proceeding Again, it is an issue with BOP inmates obtaining 

Docket Sheets.

Other court document/proceeding BOP inmates demanded the defendant’s docket 

sheet, and looked for “holes” in the docket sheet--

which corresponded to sealed motions, plea agreement attachments, sentencing memorandum, and 

the like. From those sealed docket entries, they correctly surmised the defendant was a cooperator.

Other court document/proceeding Change in Offender’s length of time listed in BOP 

data base

Other court document/proceeding CI Agreement

Other court document/proceeding co-defendant discovery

Other court document/proceeding Community became aware client would testify at 

trial of co-defendants. Threats were then made to 

defendant and family

Other court document/proceeding court-ordered discovery

Other court document/proceeding Courtroom testimony

Other court document/proceeding courtroom testimony

Other court document/proceeding Courtroom [testimony]

Other court document/proceeding Criminal Complaint

Other court document/proceeding criminal complaint

Other court document/proceeding DEA 6

Other court document/proceeding debrief statement provided in discovery to target’s 

[attorney]

Other court document/proceeding Defendant did NOT cooperate but was threatened 

until produced clean docket sheet as proof

Other court document/proceeding Defendant’s cooperation was noted in a memorandum of interview that was produced to the defense 

in discovery. Report is that members of criminal 

organization will attend sentencing to hear if there 

are any references to cooperation.

Other court document/proceeding Defendant’s Motion to Vacate

Other court document/proceeding disclosure of cooperation in discovery to codefendant

Other court document/proceeding disclosure pre-trial

Other court document/proceeding Discovery

Other court document/proceeding Discovery
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 69

Categories of Other Sources Description

Other court document/proceeding Discovery

Other court document/proceeding Discovery

Other court document/proceeding discovery

Other court document/proceeding Discovery

Other court document/proceeding Discovery

Other court document/proceeding Discovery

Other court document/proceeding Discovery

Other court document/proceeding discovery

Other court document/proceeding Discovery

Other court document/proceeding Discovery

Other court document/proceeding Discovery Documents

Other court document/proceeding discovery documents

Other court document/proceeding discovery file

Other court document/proceeding discovery file

Other court document/proceeding discovery file

Other court document/proceeding discovery file

Other court document/proceeding discovery from co-defendant

Other court document/proceeding discovery in state case

Other court document/proceeding discovery information

Other court document/proceeding Discovery material

Other court document/proceeding Discovery material was distributed into community.

Other court document/proceeding discovery materials

Other court document/proceeding Discovery materials

Other court document/proceeding Discovery materials

Other court document/proceeding Discovery materials to codefendants

Other court document/proceeding Discovery of co-defendants

Other court document/proceeding discovery provided to counsel of codefendants

Other court document/proceeding Discovery provided to the party who issued the 

threat

Other court document/proceeding discussion during sentencing

Other court document/proceeding docket

Other court document/proceeding Docket entries would allow inference
70 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories of Other Sources Description

Other court document/proceeding docket entry scheduling change of plea

Other court document/proceeding docket reports of filings under seal

Other court document/proceeding docket sheet

Other court document/proceeding docket sheet

Other court document/proceeding Docket sheet

Other court document/proceeding docket sheet

Other court document/proceeding Docket sheet had sealed filings

Other court document/proceeding ECF-docket report

Other court document/proceeding everything sealed

Other court document/proceeding evidence and transcripts from co-defendant’s trial

Other court document/proceeding evidence at co-defendant’s trial

Other court document/proceeding FBI 302

Other court document/proceeding Gave testimony on conduct of others within prison 

setting.

Other court document/proceeding government witness list

Other court document/proceeding Grand jury transcript.

Other court document/proceeding He testified in a public trial but he was transported 

with the people against whom he testified.

Other court document/proceeding I read about the issue in the PSR

Other court document/proceeding in PSR & SOR

Other court document/proceeding [indictment]

Other court document/proceeding indictment

Other court document/proceeding indictment

Other court document/proceeding inference from docket entry

Other court document/proceeding J&C, Presentence Report

Other court document/proceeding J&C, Presentence Report

Other court document/proceeding J&S, docket sheet - sealed documents

Other court document/proceeding J&S, presence of sealed items on docket

Other court document/proceeding Jencks

Other court document/proceeding Judgment obviously reflecting a reduction from a 

mandatory minimum

Other court document/proceeding Letter from counsel

Other court document/proceeding memos with redactions
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 71

Categories of Other Sources Description

Other court document/proceeding Modification of Pretrial Conditions of Release Order

Other court document/proceeding motion for transfer

Other court document/proceeding motion practice

Other court document/proceeding Motion to Seal - sealed justification

Other court document/proceeding Motion to Seal-sealed justification

Other court document/proceeding NJ state discovery

Other court document/proceeding [observers] at plea and sentencing

Other court document/proceeding Of these documents, only the [redacted] Circuit 

opinion publicly identified defendant as a cooperator; however BOP inmates confronted the defendant 

and obtained a copy of his Docket sheet, which 

showed gaps in entries for sealed documents. From 

these gaps, BOP inmates correctly deduced defendant had cooperated.

Other court document/proceeding Order Setting Conditions of Release

Other court document/proceeding Police report provided in discovery

Other court document/proceeding police report, co-defendant

Other court document/proceeding Presentence Investigation

Other court document/proceeding Presentence Investigation

Other court document/proceeding Presentence Investigation Report

Other court document/proceeding presentence report

Other court document/proceeding presentence report

Other court document/proceeding presentence report

Other court document/proceeding Proffer

Other court document/proceeding Proffer agreement, GJ testimony in discovery file

Other court document/proceeding proffer statements

Other court document/proceeding Proffer-DEA Released to defense attorneys.

Other court document/proceeding Prosecutor’s Statement and quotes copied from PSI

Other court document/proceeding Prosecutor’s Statement or copies of PSI

Other court document/proceeding PSR

Other court document/proceeding PSR

Other court document/proceeding PSR

Other court document/proceeding PSR

Other court document/proceeding PSR, GJ, Discovery
72 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories of Other Sources Description

Other court document/proceeding PSR, GJ, Discovery

Other court document/proceeding PSR, GJ, Discovery

Other court document/proceeding related state court documents

Other court document/proceeding report of proffer

Other court document/proceeding Rule 16 discovery (search warrant affidavit—

although the defendant was referred to generally as 

CS. I took proactive steps to seal other information 

to prevent additional disclosure.

Other court document/proceeding scheduling a change of plea appearing on the docket

Other court document/proceeding search warrant affidavit

Other court document/proceeding sentencing transcript

Other court document/proceeding sentencing transcript

Other court document/proceeding Statement of Reason

Other court document/proceeding Statement of Reasons

Other court document/proceeding Statement of Reasons

Other court document/proceeding Statement of Reasons

Other court document/proceeding Statement of Reasons

Other court document/proceeding statement to police

Other court document/proceeding Suspected source was an ATF report provided in 

discovery as Jencks material prior to a suppression 

hearing.

Other court document/proceeding Testified against co-defendants

Other court document/proceeding testified in public trial

Other court document/proceeding testified vs co- deft.

Other court document/proceeding Testimony and Media

Other court document/proceeding Testimony at trial

Other court document/proceeding The defendant was believed to be a cooperator because he was on bond (after a drug arrest) when the 

main target of the investigation was arrested.
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 73

Categories of Other Sources Description

Other court document/proceeding [T]he defendant was forced to sign a letter requesting docket sheets. These docket sheets were to be 

used to determine whether the defendant cooperated 

with the [government]. The letters of request were 

sent to the US Probation Office and the Clerk’s Office. [We] [redacted] chose not to send the requested 

documents to the defendant. The defendant’s mother contacted the probation officer [who] wrote the 

pre-sentence report to advise of threats being made 

against her son (the defendant).

Other court document/proceeding The defendant’s name was noted in the grand jury 

testimony on a state case in which she provided testimony as a witness and received credit for on her 

federal case.

Other court document/proceeding [T]he document being requested was the docket 

sheet which specifically indicates if the documents 

are sealed. We chose not to send the defendant his 

docket sheet as he requested.

Other court document/proceeding The Presentence Report

Other court document/proceeding [Trial] court paperwork would be used to determine 

if defendant had a 5K1.1

Other court document/proceeding transcript/discovery

Other court document/proceeding transcript/discovery

Other court document/proceeding transcripts/discovery

Other court document/proceeding transfer of inmate to attend court

Other court document/proceeding trial testimony

Other court document/proceeding trial testimony

Other court document/proceeding trial testimony

Other court document/proceeding Trial witness list

Other court document/proceeding trial witness list

Other court document/proceeding Under seal hearing in magistrate court

Other court document/proceeding under seal not disclosed

Other court document/proceeding witness disclosure

Other court document/proceeding witness list

Other court document/proceeding witness list

Other court document/proceeding Witness lists

Other court document/proceeding Witness lists

Other court document/proceeding writ
74 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories of Other Sources Description

Other court document/proceeding writ

Other court document/proceeding writ

Other court document/proceeding writted back

News A newspaper article regarding the plea was published 

in [redacted]. The article made reference to my client’s cooperation and named one of the person 

against whom he cooperated.

News [newspaper] report about trial

News Newspaper

News Newspaper article

News Government Detention Motion - which was quoted 

in news article

Talking to agents/debriefs/ government 

disclosure

At initial arrest, deft was seen talking to agents by his 

co-defendants.

Talking to agents/debriefs/ government 

disclosure

Defendant at government’s request called drug distributor while he was under detention

Talking to agents/debriefs/ government 

disclosure

Defendant was identified because he came to the 

courthouse for debriefs on days when he did not 

have a scheduled court hearing.

Talking to agents/debriefs/ government 

disclosure

FBI advised PO/offender

Talking to agents/debriefs/ government 

disclosure

Government disclosure

Talking to agents/debriefs/ government 

disclosure

Government’s disclosure of the defendant’s cooperation in other unrelated cases.

Talking to agents/debriefs/ government 

disclosure

Govt. revealed cooperation in preparation of trial

Talking to agents/debriefs/ government 

disclosure

Jailhouse observation

Talking to agents/debriefs/ government 

disclosure

Observed cooperating

Talking to agents/debriefs/ government 

disclosure

questioning by FBI

Talking to agents/debriefs/ government 

disclosure

The defendant provided [information] that was used 

by law enforcement to contact the person. The law 

enforcement contact was used as identification that 

the defendant was a cooperator.

Talking to agents/debriefs/ government 

disclosure

Trips out of jail to proffer, where no court hearing 

was scheduled.
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 75

Categories of Other Sources Description

Talking to agents/debriefs/ government 

disclosure

Was pulled from the facility for multiple debriefs 

with agents.

Talking to agents/debriefs/ government 

disclosure

Was pulled from the jail and brought to meet with 

agents.

Co-defendants/known codefendant

Co-defendants/known Co-defendant

Co-defendants/known direct threat [from] father against his son in person

Co-defendants/known Ex-boyfriend

Co-defendants/known from a co-defendant

Co-defendants/known info from other co-defendants

Co-defendants/known info from others involved in case

Co-defendants/known info from witnesses in case

Co-defendants/known Information [received] from other defendants

Co-defendants/known known cooperation

Co-defendants/known One defendant’s attorney told the attorney for another defendant of his [client’s] cooperation

Co-defendants/known statements by co-conspirators

Co-defendants/known The defendant is one of many defendants in a large 

[redacted] gang prosecution. Cooperators in this 

gang are routinely murdered. This defendant has 

pleaded guilty and everything possible is being done 

to assure his safety, including the use of sealed filings 

and proceedings

Co-defendants/known The defendant self-identified himself as cooperating 

against a co-defendant

Other A 5K1.1 [motion] was filed but the defendant was 

shot prior to the sentencing. It is no exactly clear as 

to how the defendant was identified as a cooperator.

Other extra-judicial knowledge

Other Murdered due to cooperation

Other narcotics traffickers in [redacted]

Other Not sure. Was killed within a day or two of arrival at 

prison.

Other other
76 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories of Other Sources Description

Other The defendant was believed to be cooperating (postindictment); daughter (who was believed to be an 

anonymous source to law enforcement) was assaulted. I took proactive steps to prevent the disclosure of 

sensitive documents.

Other Unknown

Other [Unknown]

Other USAO submitted

Other Was FBI Informant
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 77

Appendix E: Other Types of Harm or Threat to Witnesses

Categories of Other Harm Description

Attempted murder Attempt to Murder

Attempted murder contract to kill witness

Attempted murder Defendant [solicited] the killing of witness

Other [missing comment]

Other Agents developed information that the defendant was associated with a gang and was part of a plan to kill an ATF agent 

and an AUSA.

Other defendant was going to be a witness

Other Disclosure of suspicion that person was a cooperator

Other economic harm to family

Other free world

Other Other

Other Other

Other promise of gifts for favorable testimony

Other relocation

Other same as mentioned earlier

Other Same person

Other The person was not a defendant in the particular criminal 

action but was perceived by defendants as a cooperator. The 

perceived witness was in custody on a different matter.

Other The witness was the defendant who cooperated and testified

Other under seal

Internet/community/general 

threats

3rd party [harassment]

Internet/community/general 

threats

being ostracized by defendant’s family and community

Internet/community/general 

threats

[harassment] of sex trafficking victim by posting pictures

Internet/community/general 

threats

identity of cooperator posted on [YouTube]

Internet/community/general 

threats

nonspecific threats via social media
78 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories of Other Harm Description

Internet/community/general 

threats

threat that defendant would sue the witness for defamation 

or other civil money damages or that the witness could be 

prosecuted for perjury if willing to testify against the defendant

Internet/community/general 

threats threatened by defendant

Internet/community/general 

threats threatened multiple times

Property damage destruction of property

Property damage homes and automobiles [shot] up while occupied

Property damage The witness’ apartment was burned

Property damage Witness’ home was riddled with bullets from a high-powered 

weapon and a child was narrowly missed on the eve of the 

witness/ testimony.

Existing categories In this case, the [threatening] conduct occurred prior to the 

arrest and was part of the criminal conduct/charges. There 

was a threat of physical harm to a potential witness.

Existing categories threats of murder
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 79

Appendix F: Other Locations at the Time of Harm or Threat to 

Witnesses

Categories of Other Locations Description

Not in custody A victim not under Court supervision and not in custody

Not in custody abroad

Not in custody At his workplace

Not in custody at home

Not in custody at home

Not in custody at home - not accused

Not in custody at large

Not in custody at [liberty] with no pending charges

Not in custody at liberty

Not in custody at place of employment

Not in custody at residence

Not in custody Case not yet charged

Not in custody [civilian] witness

Not in custody [civilian] witness

Not in custody [civilian] witness

Not in custody Community

Not in custody community

Not in custody Community

Not in custody Community

Not in custody cooperating witness

Not in custody FBI agent

Not in custody Free

Not in custody free

Not in custody Free

Not in custody Free

Not in custody Free from custody

Not in custody free world

Not in custody free world
80 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories of Other Locations Description

Not in custody Had not yet been charged. She was cooperating with the government.

Not in custody Home

Not in custody home

Not in custody Home

Not in custody Home

Not in custody home - not a co-conspirator

Not in custody Home and Work

Not in custody home and work

Not in custody Home and Work

Not in custody Home and work

Not in custody Home and Work-FBI Case Agent

Not in custody Home County

Not in custody in community

Not in custody in community/not [an] offender

Not in custody in his/her community

Not in custody in his/her community

Not in custody in home

Not in custody In home or automobile

Not in custody In one case a [defendant’s] former lawyer was threatened with 

[murder]. In another a bank robbery witness was killed two 

weeks post trial. Was a brother of the defendant who was acquitted.

Not in custody in the community

Not in custody in the community

Not in custody informant was not in custody; he was a paid CI

Not in custody living at home

Not in custody living at home

Not in custody living at home

Not in custody living at home

Not in custody living in the community where the other defendants lived

Not in custody Living with a suspect

Not in custody living with Defendant [(fiancée)]
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 81

Categories of Other Locations Description

Not in custody lured away from her home by defendant

Not in custody no pending charges

Not in custody No pending charges

Not in custody non-defendant

Not in custody non-incarcerated family member of witness and witness

Not in custody non-incarcerated family members

Not in custody normal residence

Not in custody Not arrested

Not in custody not arrested

Not in custody Not charged

Not in custody not charged

Not in custody Not charged

Not in custody Not charged

Not in custody not charged. cooperating with government

Not in custody not facing charges

Not in custody NOT IN ANY KIND OF CUSTODY

Not in custody not in custody

Not in custody Not in custody

Not in custody not in custody

Not in custody Not in custody

Not in custody Not in custody

Not in custody Not in custody

Not in custody not in custody- not charged

Not in custody not in custody though had an attorney and was attempting to 

cooperate

Not in custody Not in custody.

Not in custody not in [custody]

Not in custody Not under Court supervision or custody

Not in custody On street

Not in custody on the street

Not in custody On the street.

Not in custody on the streets
82 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories of Other Locations Description

Not in custody on the streets

Not in custody on the streets

Not in custody out

Not in custody out of custody

Not in custody out of custody

Not in custody out of custody witness

Not in custody public

Not in custody some witnesses were not charged.

Not in custody Someone fired a gun at a confidential informant in a bar after his 

picture was posted online identifying him as the source for a 

defendant’s indictment

Not in custody the assailant and witness were not locked up

Not in custody The threat of harm occurred prior to the initial arrest.

Not in custody The [threatening] conduct occurred prior to the initial arrest of 

the defendant.

Not in custody The witness was not charged with a crime

Not in custody The witness was not charged with any crime

Not in custody the witness wasn’t in the criminal [system]

Not in custody trial witness, not in custody

Not in custody Uncharged

Not in custody under investigation

Not in custody under investigation

Not in custody [unindicted] witness not in custody

Not in custody [non-incarcerated] witness

Not in custody [non-incarcerated] witness

Not in custody was a trial witness

Not in custody was a witness

Not in custody was just witness

Not in custody Was not charged

Not in custody while in the community

Not in custody Witness in Community

Not in custody Witness not charged

Not in custody Witness not charged
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 83

Categories of Other Locations Description

Not in custody Witness not charged

Not in custody Witness not in custody

Not in custody witness not in system

Not in custody witness was a citizen

Not in custody Witness was a [redacted] Police officer in the murder of a [law 

enforcement officer]. He testified at pre-trial hearings in a hood 

and with the courtroom closed. The case involved in the death of 

the agent and the elimination of 3 to 5 other [redacted] that 

were aware of the circumstances leading up to the [officer’s]

killing.

Not in custody witness was an informant and a police officer giving information 

about police corruption

Not in custody witness was an informant living in society

Not in custody witness was an informant who was shot at

Not in custody witness was at liberty

Not in custody witness was child victim

Not in custody witness was the victim

Not in custody witnesses not in system

Other [missing comment]

Other a business owner

Other co-defendants, criminal

Other confidential source

Other cooperator

Other court-ordered discovery

Other defense attorneys were threatened

Other For family members none of these applies

Other I had a person convicted of sexual assault threaten the victim’s 

family after a jury verdict

Other in courtroom testifying

Other in [redacted]

Other in state court proceeding

Other Individual was a member of organized crime.

Other known to defendant

Other paid cooperator
84 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories of Other Locations Description

Other returned to the danger zone

Other still in the conspiracy

Other The person was a cooperating witness for the government who 

may have been a coconspirator as well as friend of defendant but 

do not know if government ever charged cooperator.

Other under seal

Other was a confidential informant

Other witness protection

Existing category It is my understanding that the witness was on supervised release

Existing category Post conviction release

Existing category Post-plea pre-sentence release

Existing category the witness, a gang member, testified for the government in a 

trial before one of my colleagues. The witness would have been a 

witness in my court in a case related to similar issues, but he was 

murdered [redacted]. The witness was not in custody at the time 

of his death, but I believe he was on supervised release.
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 85

Appendix G: Other Sources to Identify Witnesses

Categories of Other Sources Description

Suspicion all were by word of mouth that he was a cooperator

Suspicion jail house talk

Suspicion rumor

Suspicion suspicion of [co-conspirators]

Suspicion The witness was murdered [because] it was believed 

that he was a snitch

Suspicion word of mouth

Suspicion word on street

Other court document/proceeding affidavit

Other court document/proceeding All documents reflecting cooperation are sealed.

Other court document/proceeding announced as a witness during the trial

Other court document/proceeding ATF Agent’s Report

Other court document/proceeding Audio tapes that were used to charge an obstruction 

count.

Other court document/proceeding believe child protective services call disclosed cooperation

Other court document/proceeding case is pending; witness roles revealed in discovery

Other court document/proceeding Change of plea notice on ECF

Other court document/proceeding co-defendant discovery

Other court document/proceeding complaint

Other court document/proceeding Court testimony

Other court document/proceeding Court testimony

Other court document/proceeding court-ordered discovery

Other court document/proceeding court-ordered discovery

Other court document/proceeding Criminal Complaint

Other court document/proceeding Criminal Complaint

Other court document/proceeding criminal complaint

Other court document/proceeding Deduced from docket sheet

Other court document/proceeding Defendant learned that witness appeared before 

grand jury

Other court document/proceeding discovery

Other court document/proceeding discovery
86 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories of Other Sources Description

Other court document/proceeding discovery

Other court document/proceeding discovery

Other court document/proceeding discovery

Other court document/proceeding discovery

Other court document/proceeding Discovery

Other court document/proceeding discovery

Other court document/proceeding Discovery

Other court document/proceeding discovery

Other court document/proceeding Discovery

Other court document/proceeding Discovery

Other court document/proceeding discovery

Other court document/proceeding Discovery

Other court document/proceeding discovery

Other court document/proceeding Discovery

Other court document/proceeding Discovery

Other court document/proceeding discovery

Other court document/proceeding Discovery

Other court document/proceeding Discovery

Other court document/proceeding discovery

Other court document/proceeding Discovery

Other court document/proceeding discovery

Other court document/proceeding Discovery Documents

Other court document/proceeding Discovery documents — Agent reports

Other court document/proceeding discovery material

Other court document/proceeding Discovery material

Other court document/proceeding discovery materials

Other court document/proceeding discovery materials

Other court document/proceeding Discovery provided to defense counsel for the person against whom the witness testified.

Other court document/proceeding Discovery revealed identity

Other court document/proceeding discovery to defendant

Other court document/proceeding Docket Sheets

Other court document/proceeding fact of sealed filings
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 87

Categories of Other Sources Description

Other court document/proceeding fact of sealed filings

Other court document/proceeding FBI 302

Other court document/proceeding FBI 302

Other court document/proceeding FBI 302 and trial testimony

Other court document/proceeding Grand Jury testimony & discovery

Other court document/proceeding grand jury transcript

Other court document/proceeding grand jury transcripts/discovery

Other court document/proceeding Grand Jury Transcript

Other court document/proceeding Gvmt witness list

Other court document/proceeding identified in pretrial

Other court document/proceeding identity of informant made clear by discovery

Other court document/proceeding indictment

Other court document/proceeding Informant was identified after video surveillance was 

produced by the [government] in discovery

Other court document/proceeding informant’s role made clear in discovery

Other court document/proceeding Interview report provided in discovery

Other court document/proceeding Investigation reports

Other court document/proceeding Jencks Act Material turned over in advance of trial 

despite protective orders prohibiting defendant from 

keeping a copy in the jail

Other court document/proceeding [Jencks] r. 16 materials

Other court document/proceeding Letter from USAO to Defense Counsel

Other court document/proceeding police report

Other court document/proceeding police report

Other court document/proceeding police report describing witnesses cooperation provided in discovery

Other court document/proceeding Police reports

Other court document/proceeding police reports

Other court document/proceeding Police Reports and proffer statements

Other court document/proceeding Possible the [redacted] Police report when one of the 

suspects was apprehended in [redacted].

Other court document/proceeding Presentence report

Other court document/proceeding presentence report

Other court document/proceeding pretrial service report
88 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories of Other Sources Description

Other court document/proceeding pretrial witness list

Other court document/proceeding Proffer report provided in discovery

Other court document/proceeding Prosecutor’s Statement and copies of PSI

Other court document/proceeding PSR

Other court document/proceeding PSR

Other court document/proceeding PSR

Other court document/proceeding PSR

Other court document/proceeding PSR

Other court document/proceeding PSR

Other court document/proceeding Public testimony as [cooperating witness]

Other court document/proceeding recordings

Other court document/proceeding related state court documents

Other court document/proceeding role of witness made clear in discovery

Other court document/proceeding role of witness made clear in discovery

Other court document/proceeding rule to show cause hearing

Other court document/proceeding saw investigation information

Other court document/proceeding sealed trial witness list

Other court document/proceeding search warrant

Other court document/proceeding search warrant affidavit

Other court document/proceeding sentencing docs

Other court document/proceeding state complaint

Other court document/proceeding state complaint and state search warrant

Other court document/proceeding State court discovery and plea documents.

Other court document/proceeding subpoena

Other court document/proceeding testified against codefendant

Other court document/proceeding Testified at trial

Other court document/proceeding Testified in a Court Proceeding

Other court document/proceeding Testifying

Other court document/proceeding testimony

Other court document/proceeding Testimony at hearings

Other court document/proceeding Testimony at probable cause hearing

Other court document/proceeding testimony in trial of co defendant
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 89

Categories of Other Sources Description

Other court document/proceeding testimony of the witness

Other court document/proceeding The witness was threatened and then badly beaten 

following his testimony before me

Other court document/proceeding The witness was verbally threatened in the [courthouse], and was targeted as a [snitch] by use of Facebook and Instagram

Other court document/proceeding the writ that identified him as a government witness 

was circulated at the jail

Other court document/proceeding They were identified by not being publicly filed like 

codefendants’ documents

Other court document/proceeding transcript of trial

Other court document/proceeding trial

Other court document/proceeding trial testimony

Other court document/proceeding Trial testimony

Other court document/proceeding trial testimony

Other court document/proceeding trial testimony

Other court document/proceeding trial testimony

Other court document/proceeding trial transcript

Other court document/proceeding trial witness list

Other court document/proceeding withdrawal from the case

Other court document/proceeding withdrawal from the pending case

Other court document/proceeding witness list provided in advance of trial pursuant to 

court order

Other court document/proceeding Witness lists

Other court document/proceeding Witness lists

Other court document/proceeding Witness Statements

Other court document/proceeding witness testified at trial

News newspaper

Co-defendants/known circumstances of drug sale

Co-defendants/known cooperating co def

Co-defendants/known defendant knew witness had disclosed information

Co-defendants/known Defendant knew witness was present at time of 

crime and observed events

Co-defendants/known in a [redacted] Mafia case the word got out that the 

wife of a co-conspirator was going to be a witness 

and she was [targeted] to be killed.
90 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories of Other Sources Description

Co-defendants/known known to defendant

Co-defendants/known known to defendant

Co-defendants/known known to target

Co-defendants/known known to target

Co-defendants/known Named co-defendant in indictment

Co-defendants/known source disclosure

Co-defendants/known statement by defendant

Co-defendants/known The witness was previously employed by the defendant, and he knew she planned to testify against him.

Co-defendants/known unindicted co-conspirators

Co-defendants/known usually identified as family members of the cooperating defendant

Talking to agents/debriefs/ government 

disclosure

Observation in jail

Talking to agents/debriefs/ government 

disclosure

Seen talking with authorities on a routine matter

Other [missing comment]

Other His lawyer disclosed

Other I meant to share the following information as it relates to type of harm experienced by the witness. The 

victim was a witness in a criminal case in which her 

son was murdered. The victim (the young man’s 

mother) was raped and nearly killed.

Other Not sure how Marshal Service learned of the hit but 

the suspect was apprehended across the street from 

the court house at the time the [witness] was testifying,

Other Not sure. he was killed within a day or two of arrival 

at prison

Other on the streets

Other Other

Other other

Other Other

Other same as mentioned earlier

Other under seal

Other Was detained as a material witness in alien smuggling case.
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 91

Appendix H: Other Steps to Protect Cooperation Information

Other Steps Taken, Specified by Chief District Judges 

Info regarding cooperation at plea or sentencing heard at sidebar and then sealed

Not mailing out PSRs on request.

sealed portions of transcripts in every guilty plea and sentencing

The cooperation provisions of a plea agreement are in a separate document, not filed with the 

Clerk of Court, and maintained only [by] the judge and the prosecutor and the defense attorney. 

Also, the prosecutor’s sentencing memo describing cooperation is not filed—indeed even a noncooperator’s sentencing memo is not filed, so that there is no way to determine by deduction that a 

defendant “must” be a cooperator. Finally, any sentencing transcript is redacted for cooperating 

information before it is published on the docket.

unaware of clerk’s procedures

US Attorney has taken steps to remove references to cooperation in hearings and documents. 

Court is discussing better ways to protect PSRs.

We have levels of access and access restriction and use those on a case by case basis.

Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 93

Appendix I: Open-Ended Comments

Categories Open-Ended Comments

Missing [missing comment]

Nothing to report [During] my tenure as a judge in the [redacted district], 

none of the defendants/witnesses in any of the criminal 

cases I presided over were ever harmed or threatened to my 

knowledge.

Nothing to report I have handled only one criminal case in the past 8 years—

and there were no threats in that one. Sorry I can’t be of 

any help.

Takes issue with the survey I am extremely uncomfortable participating in this survey. 

Your questions cross or come perilously close to crossing 

the line into attorney-client confidentiality. Had I possessed 

concrete information concerning harm or threats, I probably would have decided to assert the privilege. A lawyer is 

not likely to have acquired the type of information the survey seeks except by privileged communication, especially 

given the parameters the survey places on how to answer 

the question. It does not solve the problem to promise that 

the information will remain confidential; the disclosure is 

[to] be complete once the question is answered. In addition, your survey form demanded specific numerical answers. I do not keep records concerning this issue. So, in 

particular, my answer to the question “how many requests 

for file materials to show that they were not a cooperator?”

is an estimate based upon my best recollection of the number of inquiries I might have received over the last several 

years. In a three year parameter, the number may very well 

be “1”. Finally, in my experience, it is virtually impossible 

to quantify refusals to cooperate based upon threats to personal safety. There are a myriad of moral, ethical, legal and 

other factors, different in each case, that a client might 

weigh—and properly so—in reaching a decision about 

whether to provide information concerning associates. 

Because the question of whether to cooperate is intensely 

and uniquely personal, many lawyers, myself included, consider their fiduciary duty to be met by listing those factors 

and letting the client reflect upon them alone, or with loved 

ones. Decisions, as far as I can tell, are made after balancing all such factors. It is very rare that the decision is based 

upon any single one. 
94 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories Open-Ended Comments

General comment about harm in 

prison/prison culture

The prison environment is very difficult and tense, both in 

my [redacted] and [redacted]. Paperwork is demanded, and 

people - even people who exerted a fair amount of power 

on the street - are genuinely intimidated.

Procedures for protecting defendants; general comments about the 

sources to identify cooperator

On [redacted], [redacted] adopted Standing Order Regarding Sealing Documents Filed in Criminal Matters. The Order provides prior authorization for the Clerk of Court to 

file, under seal, documents from pro se defendants seeking 

reduction of sentence based on cooperation. Filings by 

counsel under 5K1.1, Rule 35 and section 3553(e) must be 

accompanied by a motion to seal. [redacted]

Procedures for protecting defendantsThe threatened person wrote the court advising of a threat.

The court [conferred] with the defense atty and the Government atty. Also the court called the warden of the prison 

in the presence of the attorneys and made them aware of 

the alleged threat

Procedures for protecting defendants; general comment about the 

frequency of harm

I generally will ask defendants whether they or any member 

of their family has been threatened as a part of the plea colloquy in an [appropriate] case. Not infrequently they will 

either answer yes or no. If I think from the facts or [circumstances] that it is likely that threats have occurred I will ask 

whether they would tell me truthfully whether such a threat 

had been made. It happens [a lot] in drug and immigration 

related cases.

Details of a specific incident I am aware of a large drug conspiracy case that involved a 

threat to a prosecutor and myself. The prosecutors in the 

case informed me that threats had been made against codefendants in the case.

Details of a specific incident I had a large number of defendants in a heroin case which 

involved two murders and several threats.

General comment about the frequency of harmI have had 2 or 3 defendants explain why, as former felons, 

they possess weapons all the while knowing that doing so is 

a violation of their [supervised release]. On these occasions, 

the defendants have persuasively explained to me that gang 

members or other criminal actors threaten to kill the defendants if they will not re-engage with gang/criminal activities. They knowingly possess guns in violation of [supervised release] to protect themselves and family. This is not 

linked to perceived or actual cooperation with the government, but is responsive to the “additional information 

about harm or threats of harm...in the past three years.”
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 95

Categories Open-Ended Comments

Procedures for protecting witnesses It is difficult to determine how many of our witnesses were 

harmed or threatened as a result of their cooperation in our 

cases. We take preventive measures to assure witness safety 

and often relocate witnesses as soon as they begin cooperating. There are times when our witnesses are threatened in 

their communities because they are suspected of cooperating or they are recognized by the defendant and threatened 

or harmed. When that happens we immediately bring them 

in and offer them relocation services. It is a rare case when 

our witnesses are identified as cooperators through court 

proceedings (other than at trial) or court documents because all such documents are placed under seal. Because the 

[redacted district] has a high witness retaliation rate, we 

wait until the last possible moment to disclose the names of 

our witnesses and cooperators.

General comment about the frequency of harmIt seems the perception of harm/ threat is greater earlier in 

the process, due to the associates co-defendants have made.

General comment about the frequency of harm; details of a specific 

incident; general comment about 

harm in prison/prison culture; general comments about the sources to 

identify cooperator

Most threats (real or perceived) are in drug cases. Defense 

attorneys routinely ask that absolutely no record of their 

clients’ cooperation be shown anywhere in the record, including plea agreements and 5K1 motions. One defendant 

was so worried about being identified as a snitch that he 

asked to be sentenced to his statutory mandatory minimum 

[redacted] imprisonment) even though he qualified for a 

5K1 motion at sentencing. He had been told by other defendants that when he showed up at his designated BOP 

facility, he would be asked to provide his Pre-Sentence Report or J&C as “proof” as to whether or not he was a rat.

Details of a specific incident; general comment about harm in prison/prison culture; general comment 

about the frequency of harm; general comments about the sources to 

identify cooperator

1) Social media has been used to post discovery. 2) We had 

one defendant who managed to get a criminal associate 

hired at the law firm of a co-defendant out of desperation 

to determine whether anyone was cooperating, including 

the co-defendant. 3) Inmates regularly abuse “legal mail”

privileges to send written threats to witnesses and judges 

while in BOP custody; 4) We had a defendant go pro se in 

an attempt to undermine a protective order which limited 

dissemination of discovery; 5) We had to relocate a witness 

and their entire family after he was [threatened] at gunpoint; 6) We had a witness who was shot [at] by two males, 

each [carrying] a gun. Had they not missed, he would have 

been dead; 7) threats against judicial officers have required 

recusal of the USAO, necessitating appointment of an 

SAUSA and costly travel and lodging expenses. In one such 

case, our AUSA was required to make [redacted] overnight 

air trips to another District and was out of town in a hotel 

during [redacted] [a] long trial.
96 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories Open-Ended Comments

General comment about harm in 

prison/prison culture; general 

comment about the frequency of 

harm

A BOP investigator in a civil rights case testified in my 

court that upon entry into the FCIs he has worked in, new 

inmates are routinely and quickly confronted and made to 

produce their sentencing “paperwork” by a deadline to 

prove that they did not cooperate with authorities. The 

inmates are told that if they cannot do so, they should seek 

protective custody (usually by requesting transfer into the 

“secure” (maximum security) unit, or face violence from 

other inmates. An inmate corroborated this account.

Details of a specific incident; general comments about the sources to 

identify cooperator; procedures for 

protecting defendants

A co-defendant in a multi-defendant drug conspiracy 

flipped and testified for the Government. He was being 

housed in the Metropolitan Correctional Center on a different floor from the other defendants. One day during 

trial, the defendant and the cooperator were brought over 

in the same van.

Details of a specific incident; procedures for protecting defendantsA defendant in a drug conspiracy indictment before another judge in this district conspired with others to kidnap 2 

defendants on pretrial release with cases before me, have 

the defendants transported to [redacted], then murdered.

The 2 defendants cooperated with law enforcement, one 

posing for pictures as having been shot in a bathtub, and 

the government filed 5K motions for reduction. 

Details of a specific incident A defendant’s home was burned down when his cooperation was made known. A mother and her daughter (both 

witnesses) were threatened with a gun and were directed to 

submit affidavits prepared by the defendant regarding why 

they would not testify before the grand jury. A defendant 

made it known that anyone who testified against him 

would be shunned in a small rural [community]. In a case 

in which a member of the conspiracy was murdered for 

stealing drugs, cooperators described pressure from Defendant and his family members to not submit to pressure 

from government.

Procedures for protecting defendantsAgain, all the cases were filed under seal

Procedures for protecting defendantsAll of my knowledge is anecdotal, and non-specific. We 

work hard to use preventive measures identified above to 

avoid these situations.

General comment about the frequency of harmAlmost all inmates request Docket. I am certain they are 

pressured to get that information but I know of no actual 

threats of harm that leads them to make this request.

General comment about the frequency of harm; general comment 

about harm in prison/prison culture

Almost all of our clients who are sentenced to incarceration 

call the office from the designated institution and request 

some court document to prove that they have not cooperated. 

Nothing to report Although the issue is occasionally raised in criminal cases I 

believe that the threat to family/friends was only remotely 

credible on one [occasion] and the specifics were lacking.
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 97

Categories Open-Ended Comments

Details of a specific incident; procedures for protecting defendants; 

general comment about harm in 

prison/prison culture; general 

comments about the sources to 

identify cooperator

An offender under supervision reported being assaulted on 

more than one occasion while in BOP custody. Another 

offender under supervision reported being severely beaten 

while in BOP custody and threatened several times while on 

supervised release. One officer reported preparing presentence reports for a [redacted] defendant drug conspiracy 

where numerous defendants cooperated. The cooperation 

activities were only disclosed through confidential memorandums and sentencing memorandums filed under seal.

The case agent and a defense attorney reported one cooperating defendant and his/her family received numerous violent threats from other codefendants and members of the 

community, which caused the cooperating defendant’s 

family to move to another city. The defendant’s name and 

the words “rat” or “snitch” was written numerous times on 

the walls of the Marshals’ holding cells. 

Nothing to report As noted we have no documented instances of harm or 

threats in these types of cases so they were neither higher 

nor lower from one year to the next.

Takes issue with the survey Asking how many defendants and witnesses refused cooperation is asking for an unknown, because we don’t know if 

a defendant or witness was interested in cooperating or why 

they chose not to do so. We also do not know whether 

threats were directed to potential witnesses.

Details of a specific incident [redacted] I presided over a trial of a heroin kingpin. All of 

his co-defendants pleaded guilty and none testified against 

him. However, one of the co-defendants had [a] death 

threat from a [redacted] cartel. This may have been because 

the co-defendant was suspected of cooperating with the 

government, although the co-defendant did not have a cooperation agreement provision in his written Plea Agreement.

Policy comments Be [sensitive] to the public’s right to know about the details 

of criminal cases even those that involve a potential for 

harm to cooperators.

General comment about the frequency of harm; details of a specific 

incident; general comments about 

the sources to identify cooperator

Before taking senior status, I had a fairly heavy criminal 

caseload. Given the number of cases, it is difficult for me to 

remember all the ones in which cooperating defendants and 

witnesses received threats. In 2014, for example, I held [redacted] sentencing hearings. Very few of those involved 

simple immigration cases. Most were drug conspiracies, 

fraud type offenses, and firearms offenses. There are often 

concerns in the drug cases about retaliation against cooperators. The drug gangs do their best to obtain court documents indicating who cooperates and who does not. I am 

sure that I have had many criminal defendants, their family 

members, and witnesses in criminal cases who have received threats. One was the victim of a drive-by shooting in 

retaliation.
98 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories Open-Ended Comments

General comment about the frequency of harmBelligerent attitude among and between defendants and 

their respective witnesses has intensified; threatened murders of relatives of defendants is much more common and 

whether they have occurred may not be available information to the Court. Whatever “restraints” on behavior 

that may have previously existed, they have vanished!

Details of a specific incident; procedures for protecting defendantsBoth of the offenders experienced threats of physical harm 

to self and family while on supervised release; and didn’t 

request or receive protective custody of special housing unit 

placement.

General comment about the frequency of harm; general comment 

about harm in prison/prison culture; general comments about the 

sources to identify cooperator

Clients call to request PSR and court documents to document that they are not cooperating. I have recently heard 

that convicts are more apt to be requested info from other 

[redacted] inmates. I question whether convicts from [redacted] cooperate after conviction and threaten or force 

other [redacted] inmates to provide information proving 

that they are not “rats”.

Details of a specific incident; general comment about harm in prison/prison cultureco-defendant died under suspicious circumstances while at 

the detention center

General comment about the frequency of harm; general comment 

about harm in prison/prison culture

Co-Defendants and witnesses who cooperate are often 

threatened even though their cooperation is to be confidential. [Occasionally] actual physical violence occurs. There is 

clearly an element of [intimidation] present in the detention and prison facilities.

General comment about harm in 

prison/prison culture; general 

comment about the frequency of 

harm; procedures for protecting 

defendants; procedures for protecting witnesses; details of a specific 

incident; general comments about 

the sources to identify cooperator

Comments offered by AUSAs: / / / Comment 1: Defense 

attorneys often ask about whether it is possible to leave 

cooperation out of plea agreements or to seal plea agreements. Defendants who are considering cooperation are 

concerned about the presence of sealed 5K motions being a 

red flag for cooperator status with other BOP inmates, and 

many fear general reprisal upon reaching the BOP. The 

above case is a good example of this prisoner notion of being considered “soft” if one is housed in prison with a 

“snitch.” The defendant was suspected of having a gang 

connection to the ultimate instigator of the violence, but 

his accomplices were motivated to help simply in order to 

remove a cooperator from their midst, or to “check the 

snitch off the block.” / / Comment 2: The threat of harm is 

always a major issue in prosecuting gang cases. It is difficult 

to determine when there have been actual threats that we 

do not know of, and when the reluctant witness fears retribution in the future, but nothing has been threatened yet.

In general, a substantial number of potential witnesses to 

gang violence appear nervous about cooperating, and it 

takes a great deal of effort to get people to cooperate. / / 

Comment 3: We are seeing an increase in defense attorneys 

telling us that their clients don’t want to cooperate nor do 

they want us to put a cooperation provision in their plea 

agreements – and are [leery] of sealed entries in their dock-
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 99

Categories Open-Ended Comments

et sheets because when they get to prison, the cooperation 

or sealed entries are taken to mean they are snitches. Not 

sure if they are concerned only about harm to themselves, 

but the harm to their families, especially those back home 

in [redacted]. / / Comment 4: I have one defendant who 

cooperated in a state case. He was never explicitly threatened, but life on the street doesn’t require explicit threats.

When we first met this defendant he refused to discuss the 

source of the counterfeit currency he was caught distributing. In fact, he got it from some gang members in [redacted] area, but wouldn’t discuss it with us. He did tell us 

that he wouldn’t talk about the currency because he knew 

that members of the gang would come after his mother. He 

was never threatened, but there was no need of a threat. / / 

I don’t know exactly what the survey is trying to capture, 

but it’s missing a big problem. There need not be an actual 

threat to shut down cooperation, as the above example 

shows. I recall other anecdotes but they’re older than three 

years. / / Comment 5: Threats from the Cartels in [redacted] continue to be an issue. One defendant and her children were forced to flee and face prosecution here because 

of threats to her regarding possible cooperation of her and 

her husband. A material witness in that same case has been 

pursuing asylum from the Immigration Court out of [redacted]. / 

General comment about the frequency of harm; general comment 

about harm in prison/prison culture; general comments about the 

sources to identify cooperator

cooperating defendants who are incarcerated are routinely 

asked to show their plea agreements to prove they are not 

cooperating with the government

Details of a specific incident [redacted], who agreed to cooperate with the government, 

was murdered the very night of her first interview. Two 

defendants in a multi-defendant drug conspiracy case were 

charged with her murder. One was convicted by jury of 

murder, one pleaded guilty to the murder charge.

General comment about harm in 

prison/prison culture; general 

comment about the frequency of 

harm; policy comments; general 

comments about the sources to 

identify cooperator

Defendants are frequently confronted and asked to provide 

their Docket Sheet upon arrival at their BOP facility. That 

Docket Sheet is then examined by other inmates for sealed 

documents that create “gaps” in the Docket Sheet sequential 

numbering. Any gaps are viewed with suspicion--as the inmates usually correctly assume those are sealed motions, plea 

agreements, orders, and memorandum related to cooperation. The defendant is then labeled a cooperator. This forces 

the defendant into protective custody, or leads to assaults, 

harassment, threats, and other behavior. I have tried to work 

with BOP Legal Counsel to ban BOP inmates from having 

Docket Sheets (much like the BOP bans PSRs, which were 

excluded from inmate possession for similar reasons). I have 

not heard back from BOP legal counsel on the issue. 
100 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories Open-Ended Comments

General comment about harm in 

prison/prison culture; general 

comment about the frequency of 

harm; details of a specific incident; 

general comments about the 

sources to identify cooperator

Defendants are threatened with bodily harm when they 

arrive at their designated institutions by the prisoners that 

are designated the “shot callers”. Before the defendants are 

permitted to be on the yard, he must show his paper work, 

(plea agreement and judgment). Some have requested their 

presentence report which is not permitted in the possession 

of an inmate. One defendant was beaten so bad, he was 

hospitalized. He did not cooperate, but rather another inmate with the same name. The prisoners received the information after having had family and friends look up the 

defendant’s name.

General comment about harm in 

prison/prison culture; general 

comments about the sources to 

identify cooperator

Demands by inmates for new inmates to supply a copy of their 

Plea Agreements and sentencing transcripts for verification 

that they were not cooperators. Failure to provide the required 

information meant they were considered to be “rats”

Details of a specific incident; procedures for protecting witnesses; procedures for protecting defendantsDuring our office’s prosecution of multiple defendants who 

were part of a local [redacted] gang, a cooperating witness 

(“CW”) was threatened with death, and so were members 

of his family in [redacted]. The Government arranged for 

members of the CW’s family to be brought to the United 

States for their safety. Following their arrival, the Government provided funds for the CW’s family members to 

change residences due to additional threats from the defendants. During this prosecution, eight of the defendants 

who cooperated with the Government sought and received 

custodial wit-sec protection due to likely retaliation and 

threat assessment. / / During our office’s investigation of 

several gang members of [redacted] descent, 3 cooperating 

defendants were threatened while in custody. / / During our 

office’s prosecution of several corrupt police officers involved in illegal drug activities, the confidential informant 

(“CI”) was threatened via text message by one of the defendants. Prior to receipt of the threat, the Government had 

already arranged for the CI to be relocated out of state for 

his protection. / 

Details of a specific incident; procedures for protecting witnesses; procedures for protecting defendantsEach of the cases that I have had involving witnesses have 

been victims of domestic violence where the defendant is 

on supervised release and I am informed that the defendant 

has threatened the victim. It is brought to my attention 

through a supervised release revocation report. The case 

with the cooperating defendant being threatened and put 

into protective custody was also brought to my attention 

due to a pretrial services officer informing me.

Policy comments; general comment 

about the frequency of harm; general comments about the sources to 

identify cooperator

Electronic dissemination of case information, particularly 

when informants are involved, is problematical for incarcerated defendants. It makes motion and appellate practice 

cumbersome, and it is nearly impossible to control sensitive 

information to the detriment of defendants and government witnesses as well. As a defense attorney, I much prefer 

that these matters not be publicized.
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 101

Categories Open-Ended Comments

General comment about the frequency of harm; policy comments; 

general comments about the 

sources to identify cooperator

Every client sent to BOP asks for a copy of their docket 

sheet, even the clients who did cooperate. The cooperating 

clients want us to somehow amend the docket sheet so 

there are no sealed documents. Meanwhile, as someone 

who also represents the people who are cooperated against, 

I know that finding out information about cooperation 

efforts, even though it’s important impeachment evidence, 

is becoming more and more difficult. 

Nothing to report Fear of the prosecutor and agents more prevalent fear.

Nothing to report Fortunately, I have none to report

General comment about the frequency of harmHave been a number of cases where illegal alien defendants 

were participants in drug distribution in U.S., usually as 

low-level couriers or mules, for a relatively nominal payment of money, but not otherwise a significant part of the 

drug operation. Many report having been threatened, or 

having their families threatened, in [redacted] by drug cartels operating there. The government has conceded, in at 

least some of the cases, that the threats and risks are real. 

Details of a specific incident Higher in 2014 due to Robbery Case where four Defendant’s/witnesses were assaulted or threatened. 

Nothing to report I am a new Judge appointed in [redacted] 

Nothing to report I am a recently appointed judge, and have no criminal 

docket at this time.

Nothing to report; takes issue with 

the survey

I am not aware of any harm or threats in the past 3 years.

Thus, in answering this question I was not sure whether to 

select “I don’t know” or “about the same”....

Nothing to report I am not aware of any instances where cooperators were 

threatened or harmed.

Nothing to report I am not aware of any reported incidents or threats to defendants from our district.

Nothing to report; general comment about the frequency of harmI am relatively new to the bench. But this has been going on 

for years.

Nothing to report I am Senior Status and have not handled any criminal [cases] for the last three years.

General comment about the frequency of harm; general comment 

about harm in prison/prison culture; procedures for protecting witnesses; general comments about the 

sources to identify cooperator

I am very concerned about cooperating witnesses once they 

get to prison, whether they cooperated initially and received 

a benefit for cooperation at their initial sentencing or later 

got a Rule 35. Even though we try to protect them by sealing certain documents, allies of those who want to know for 

improper reasons can access the court file from outside of 

prison, and they do. When a sealed Order in an otherwise 

dormant file shows up, you can just about bet it is a Rule 35 

reduction, and allies of others in prison know that. I had 

one instance of where I somehow found out about such an 

inquiry being made for others in prison.

Nothing to report I began my service as a federal district court judge on [redacted]
102 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories Open-Ended Comments

Nothing to report I believe I had one and possibly two alleged threats to family members, but all of it was hearsay and not much collaboration. 

Takes issue with the survey; general 

comment about the frequency of 

harm; policy comments; general 

comments about the sources to 

identify cooperator

I believe the survey calls for speculative answers. To the 

extent such threats or harm can be linked [with] any court 

activity, which is speculative itself, if there is a link, it is the 

following: if anyone who wants to do harm to a so-called 

cooperator is sophisticated in any [respect], they know that 

the word “sealed” on any court docket means only one 

thing: a cooperation provision is part of the case. / The fact 

of cooperation cannot be kept from the public [vis-à-vis] 

the specifics of the cooperation. At sentencing the judge of 

course must announce the amount of time being reduced 

from the sentence for cooperation. The details of the cooperation are never placed on the record except in the rare 

case where the defendant chooses to. 

General comment about the frequency of harm; general comments 

about the sources to identify cooperator

I believe there was a concern that threats are generated 

from those who gain access to public documents that discuss cooperation or potential cooperation by a defendant in 

custody.

General comment about the frequency of harm; comments about 

refusal out of fear

I can not recall threat of harm to cooperators but do recall

1) defendants and family members who [were] threatened/harassed because people thought the defendant was 

cooperating or might do so, and 2) defendants who declined to proffer and help [themselves] because people 

might think they were cooperators

Takes issue with the survey; general 

comment about the frequency of 

harm; general comment about 

harm in prison/prison culture; 

comments about refusal out of fear

I can only answer for defendants because that’s whom we 

represent. I can’t answer for witnesses. / Limit of 100 is 

insufficient to express number of defendants who 1) request court documents to show they didn’t cooperate (virtually all of those incarcerated make this request, so many 

hundreds; 2) I can’t quantify number of defendants who 

refuse to cooperate out of fear. This is a constant theme and 

vastly exceeds 100.
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 103

Categories Open-Ended Comments

Nothing to report; general comment about the frequency of harm; 

policy comments

I cannot recall the last time a client, defendant or witness in 

a matter I was involved in was threatened in any way. In my 

practice, which overwhelmingly involves the representation 

of federal defendants and witnesses in federal criminal matters, the threat or risk of harm has not presented itself in 

years. The extent to which such is an issue depends on the 

nature of the case and the defendants involved in it. For 

example, in my district, the risk of harm to a cooperating 

defendant or witness in a health care fraud case is typically 

much lower than that faced by a similar defendant or witness in large scale drug trafficking case where the leaders of 

the conspiracy remain free while a low ranking conspirator 

is enlisted as witness in an ongoing investigation that has 

yet [to] result in additional arrests and charges against the 

leaders. I also perceive that defendants and witnesses in 

many cases, including drug trafficking and other organized 

criminal activities, are more likely to cooperate today than 

in the past. It is more common and there is less taboo 

therefore associated with “cooperating” among defendants 

and witnesses. The current mechanism whereby the parties 

must articulate to the court why something should be 

sealed appears to be working. The purported need for blanket rules allowing court records and documents to be sealed 

or shielded from the public is a canard.

Nothing to report I can’t recall any others

Takes issue with the survey; general 

comment about the frequency of 

harm; procedures for protecting 

defendants; general comments 

about the sources to identify cooperator; comments about refusal out 

of fear

I could not accurately answer the previous questions with a 

number. We frequently have clients call asking for their file 

and/or docket to prove they are not cooperators - even client who have cooperated. Most [do] not claim they are 

being threatened but some do. I cannot quantify how many 

call but it is often. Most ask that the cooperation portion of 

a plea agreement be placed under seal (that is not automatically done here). 5K motions and anything referencing cooperation (e.g. mtns to adjourn) are under seal. I cannot 

quantify. I will say that most often when they want to withdraw it is because they do not want to be exposed as a cooperator through testimony but not necessarily because 

they’ve already been threatened. It is a concern they will be 

threatened/harmed once their name is on a witness list.

Since most cases plea, cooperators are not exposed. We also 

have clients who choose not to cooperate. Some make that 

choice because they do not want to help the government or 

turn on their family/friends. Others are scared of retaliation. I cannot quantify this because we do not necessarily 

ask our clients why they are making this decision. / / I 

don’t know if this is helpful. I am sorry that I cannot provide a number.
104 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories Open-Ended Comments

Nothing to report; Takes issue with 

the survey; policy comments

I do believe that this is an important issue. But it is my 

opinion that Judges are the least likely to have knowledge of 

what happens after his/her case is closed.

Nothing to report I do not recall receiving reports of harm or threats of harm 

experienced by any defendant, witness, or family or friends 

of a defendant or witness from cases on my docket in the 

past three years.

General comment about the frequency of harm; general comment 

about harm in prison/prison culture

I do not recall specifics but I do recall being informed 

(primarily in connection with sentencings that defendants 

have been threatened in detention facilities and/or their 

families threatened with physical harm in connection with 

actual or suspected cooperation. All in drug cases, some of 

which also involved charges of violent crime (including 

murder) against the person to whom the threats were attributed.

Nothing to report I do not see any change in harm, threats, or worries about 

harm over the last three years (or over the last [redacted] 

years, for that matter). Clients are often worried about retaliation; however, I have never seen any evidence or stories 

about actual harm.

Details of a specific incident; Takes 

issue with the survey

I don’t recall any cases involving witnesses being harmed or 

threatened before 2014. The harm experienced by a witness’

family was a drive-by shooting of the family home allegedly 

arranged by one of the defendants.

General comment about the frequency of harm; Takes issue with 

the survey; general comments about 

the sources to identify cooperator

I got tired of answering the same way but I probably see 15 

or so cases per year where a cooperating defendant in pretrial custody is [threatened] based on the knowledge he is 

cooperating based on debriefing statements placed in the 

[discovery] file of co-[conspirators].

Details of a specific incident; general comment about the frequency 

of harm

I had a multi-defendant case arising out of brutal assault of 

an expelled member of the [redacted]. All but one of the 

defendants pled. Three or four testified for the Government in the trial of the one defendant who went to trial.

The “rule” of this [redacted] gang is that one does not get 

out of it alive. Those who testified were under threat of

death, and one in particular — who had a prior State sentence to serve — sought (unsuccessfully) a deal to avoid 

having to serve his State term in the State prison for fear 

that he would be killed. The Assistant U.S. Attorney who 

led the initial prosecution was removed from handling further [redacted] cases at his request after he received death 

threats. / / Frequent death threats are made in illegal alien 

trafficking cases, to control the illegal aliens until transportation fees are collected, and occasionally some of these 

aliens are called as witnesses. / / An assistant U.S. Attorney 

and [I] are currently under death threats from a detained 

defendant awaiting sentencing on convictions including on 

one count of solicitation to commit a crime of violence.
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 105

Categories Open-Ended Comments

Details of a specific incident I had one cooperating witness who was concerned about 

potential threats once he was sentenced and started serving 

his custodial sentence. His main area of concern, however, 

centered around his deportation to [redacted] and the 

threat of harm facing him from drug cartels in [redacted].

Details of a specific incident I have a large drug case involving about [redacted] defendants. Two of them claim that they were threatened not to 

cooperate.

Details of a specific incident I have a pending case involving a local gang and allegations 

of 2 or more killings of cooperating witnesses.

Nothing to report I have been a judge [redacted].

Nothing to report I have been on senior status for [redacted] and have not 

had a criminal docket for the past three years.

Nothing to report I have been on the bench less than [redacted].

Nothing to report I have been on the bench less than [redacted].

Nothing to report I have been on the bench only [redacted] and have had my 

criminal docket for only [about] [redacted]. I have am not 

aware of any threats thus far experienced by defendants 

and/or witnesses, or their family or friends.

Nothing to report I have had counsel represent that there may be a potential 

threat of harm to a defendant or witness, however, I do not 

believe that there has been any actual harm or threat of 

harm. Or, maybe, I have just not been made aware.

Nothing to report I have had no problems with threats of harm to clients or 

witnesses. If I ever had any issues, I am sure I could work 

with the government and the court to handle them on a 

case-specific basis. 

Details of a specific incident; general comment about the frequency 

of harm

I have had one case in which a codefendant was murdered 

just before he was scheduled to appear for a change of plea.

I have had other cases in which I learned that a witness was 

[threatened] but I cannot recall whether any of those instances occurred within the past three years.

Nothing to report I have no information that any defendant or witness was 

harmed or threatened due to perceived or actual cooperation.

General comment about the frequency of harm; policy comments; 

general comments about the 

sources to identify cooperator

I have no other specific information to provide, but have 

the impression that the US Department of Justice and US 

Attorney’s offices do not consider the protection of cooperating defendants (and to a lesser extent witnesses) to be 

much of a priority, despite the rapid increase in electronic 

access and search capabilities in recent years. Perhaps this is 

reflective of better information about the real threat to an 

incarcerated individual’s relative safety, but fear there is a 

certain amount of fatalism (even cynicism) about what can 

be or should be to follow through on these protections.

Instead, prosecutors seem to be defaulting on their telling 

the potential informant that, while efforts will be made to 

protect them, at the end of the day their safety cannot be 

assured.
106 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories Open-Ended Comments

Nothing to report I have not been advised of any threats to anyone

Nothing to report; general comment about harm in prison/prison 

culture; general comment about the 

frequency of harm; general comments about the sources to identify 

cooperator; comments about refusal 

out of fear

I have not had any clients that, to my knowledge before or 

after, were threatened or harmed because of cooperation. I 

can tell you that the CW in jail is that other inmates at the 

FCI’s they will be assigned to, will have access to their 

judgment and other docs and so will be able to tell if an 

inmate was granted a 5K or a reduced sentenced for cooperation and they fear retribution for that. The effect is to 

limit D.’s willing to cooperate. I have had a handful, maybe 

6, cases in the past 3 years that the fear of retribution prevented their cooperation.

Nothing to report; general comment about the frequency of harm; 

general comment about harm in 

prison/prison culture; general 

comments about the sources to 

identify cooperator; comments 

about refusal out of fear

I have not had defendants/witnesses who have received 

actual threats or have been harmed because of cooperation 

or possible cooperation. However, it is common that defendants do not wish to have a cooperation provision in the 

plea agreement because of safety concerns. Those concerns 

are two-fold. One is the general concern about their family 

who will remain in the community. The other concern is 

that the paperwork at BOP will indicate they are cooperating. The fact that a defendant’s cooperation is not kept secure by BOP is a major factor keeping many defendants 

from desiring to cooperate.

Nothing to report; general comments about the sources to identify 

cooperator; general comment about 

harm in prison/prison culture

I have not known of documents or transcripts to have been 

used. Typically it is the movement of the prisoner/witness 

in and out of the facility to meet with the AUSAs which 

enlighten fellow inmates.

Nothing to report I have not received any information that defendants who 

are serving time after sentencing have been threatened in 

prison for cooperating. 

Details of a specific incident I have one case where the parties’ attorneys have expressed 

serious concerns about any possible threats being made to 

the defendant during the cooperation period, especially 

because he is in custody.

Nothing to report I have only been a District Judge for [redacted].

Nothing to report I have only been a federal judge for [redacted]. During my 

tenure, I have not experienced harm/threats to witnesses or 

cooperators in any of my cases. 

Nothing to report I have only been a judge for [redacted].

Nothing to report I have only been on the bench for [redacted].

Nothing to report I have only been on the bench for [redacted].

General comment about the frequency of harm; general comment 

about harm in prison/prison culture; general comments about the 

sources to identify cooperator

I have only heard of threats to prisoners where their cooperation was discovered through reference to their plea 

agreements or 5K petition. I have no first hand knowledge 

of such activity in cases on my docket.

Nothing to report I have only served as USDJ since [redacted] so I have a limited basis to compare.
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 107

Categories Open-Ended Comments

Nothing to report I have polled all current officers and supervisors and they 

do not recall [any] incidents within the past three years.

General comment about the frequency of harm; procedures for 

protecting defendants; general 

comment about harm in prison/prison culture; policy comments; general comments about the 

sources to identify cooperator

I have practiced actively in the [redacted] since [redacted].

Only one defendant (during the 90’s) has been the subject 

of credible threats during a case and he was appropriately 

given a place to live outside of town by the FBI for a brief 

period. It is not infrequent that clients communicate from 

prison about cooperation allegations, including two or 

three times during the last three years. Clients have requested their PSR, docket sheet, phony letters from the US Attorney’s office or from me. I am not aware of any client 

being the subject of actual harm. The current system of 

sealing cooperation agreements does not offer protection 

since plea agreements are public and anybody can do the 

math and compare guideline levels to actual sentences.

Now that the Guidelines are discretionary, there is a risk of 

being falsely accused of being a cooperator if one gets a 

reduced sentence for some other reason. / / My view is that 

the only way to protect defendants is for less of the docket 

to be public records. 

Details of a specific incident; Takes 

issue with the survey; general comment about the frequency of harm

I have presided over the [redacted] [trials] lasting [redacted]; The [redacted] that were [redacted]; subsequent subsets of [redacted] trials [redacted]; The [redacted] trials 

[redacted] and numerous other cases involving organized 

criminal gangs [redacted]. Cooperating witness and [witness] intimidation are standard and the present procedures 

highlight their cooperation and endanger witnesses. / I did 

not limit my comments the last three years. / [redacted]

Nothing to report I just became a judge in [redacted] so I can’t compare . . . 

Nothing to report I just took the bench on [redacted].

Details of a specific incident; general comments about the sources to 

identify cooperator

I know of only one case in the past three years. The case involved the exportation of military grade munitions. Once his 

cooperation was published in the local paper, his family in 

[redacted] asserted that they were compelled to move. His wife 

reported that [someone] shot into her vehicle, she added that 

her son was beaten up, and that they live in constant fear.

General comment about the frequency of harmI learn from defense lawyers about threats. They learn 

about threats from [their] clients. Typically I do not learn 

of the details. I also am not told if the defendant requested 

protection. Lawyers are very reluctant to give much information about threats because sharing [details] may place 

their clients at further risk. I believe this is a problem that is 

under reported to the courts.

Nothing to report I only became a judge in [redacted], so I have no basis for 

comparison.

Details of a specific incident; general comments about the sources to 

identify cooperator

I only recall one person who, when filing a 2255, requested 

it be sealed due to fears of threats as he had been a cooperating defendant.
108 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories Open-Ended Comments

Details of a specific incident; general comments about the sources to 

identify cooperator

I recall one case where I was informed that a cooperating 

witness was subjected to threats, including on the internet, 

for participating in the trial

Details of a specific incident; general comments about the sources to 

identify cooperator

I recall only the one case I have previously described and 

the Motion to Vacate at issue and the opinion were issued 

in 2014 but defendant’s allegation of being [harassed] by 

inmates based on the opinion were raised in 2015

Details of a specific incident; general comments about the sources to 

identify cooperator

I recently sentenced a defendant who had from jail instructed his girlfriend to identify a co-conspirator on 

rats.com for cooperating.

Procedures for protecting defendantsI require all documents that reference cooperation or potential cooperation to be filed under seal. I also seal transcripts. I have sealed or moved sentencing hearings.

Nothing to report; Takes issue with 

the survey; general comment about 

the frequency of harm

I spoke with [redacted] and was told if i did not recall a 

specific number I should respond with the number “0”, 

which I have done. / / Also this survey is too absolute in its 

questioning. A whole host of factors may go into the client’s 

decision to cooperate or not, not only the fear of harm or 

retaliation. So any cause and effect analysis is misleading. 

Suffice it to say that fear is present in almost any drug case 

where there is cooperation. 

Details of a specific incident I took the oath in [redacted], so I have a limited data set 

from which to answer. / / The one case I described, where a 

shot was taken aimed at an informant, (which missed), is 

the only incident with which I am familiar.

General comment about harm in 

prison/prison culture; general 

comment about the frequency of 

harm; details of a specific incident

I tried to indicate that every client who is sent to BOP requests their “paperwork” to prove they are not a cooperator. The number is much higher than I indicated but the 

survey did not accept the number I put in so I dropped it to 

10. A client has two weeks to produce their documents once 

they enter BOP to prove they are not a cooperator otherwise they are subjected to physical harm. One client was 

beat senseless with a lock in a sock, he suffered severe head 

wounds. They are all threatened once they arrive in BOP 

custody. 

General comment about the frequency of harm; policy commentsI understand that the only way generally for a defendant to 

receive a departure, is to cooperate, the extension of that 

cooperation can not only lead to a dangerous situation for 

the defendant, but also for the officer supervising that defendant. It is critical that the AUSA and the agents advise 

officers of a defendant’s cooperation, so that they are not 

put in an unnecessary high risk situation. 

Nothing to report I was confirmed in [redacted], so I am unable to make a 

comparison between 2013 and 2014.

Details of a specific incident; comments about refusal out of fearI was dealing with defendants associated with the [redacted] drug cartel. Cooperators and their family members 

were under constant threat. Numerous defendants refused 

to protect their family members in [redacted].

Nothing to report I was not on the bench in [redacted].
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 109

Categories Open-Ended Comments

Nothing to report I was off of our criminal law draw for most of the past three 

years. I went on the draw for about three months in about 

[redacted], and drew three long cases and, therefore, took 

myself out of the criminal draw again. The trials were [redacted] weeks, respectively. So, I probably have little to add 

to this survey.

Nothing to report I was sworn in on [redacted], so my experience is very limited.

Nothing to report I would not have information about this because it is not a 

matter ordinarily brought to my attention.

General comment about the frequency of harm; comments about 

refusal out of fear

I wrote 15 for the number for people who withdrew. It is 

likely higher. We are in [redacted] where many of our clients are so fearful, b/c of the environment, that we can’t 

even get clients to have a safety valve interview. Clients 

would rather do their mandatory minimum than be labeled 

a “snitch.” Dozens and dozens of our clients refuse to cooperate out of fear and the threats.

General comments about the 

sources to identify cooperator

if there are sealed pleading on the docket sheet, the assumption is that client is cooperating 

Nothing to report I’m a new judge and therefore do not have relevant information.

General comment about the frequency of harm; policy commentsI’m afraid my lack of recollection does not allow me to recount the many more instances over the [redacted] years I 

have been on the bench in which cooperating defendants 

have been afraid after they have provided information. My 

experience is that there is a complete disconnect between 

the United States Attorneys Office and the Bureau of Prisons such that once a defendant is no longer needed, he is 

discarded and the interest and knowledge in how best to 

protecting him or her is minimal to non-existent. There is 

no sense of commitment to the safety of the cooperator for 

the duration of his term in custody or upon release.

Details of a specific incident; general comment about the frequency 

of harm

In a large drug trafficking case, a witness/cooperator received a threat via letter. The letter was sent to the witnesses/defendant’s family. The FBI is investigating the case.

Often, in other cases, many defendants allege that they will 

be harmed for cooperating - however it’s difficult to verify 

if any actual harm might befall them.

Details of a specific incident; general comment about the frequency 

of harm; general comments about 

the sources to identify cooperator

In approximately 2010 there was a huge upsurge in drug 

conspiracy cases involving violence. Two of the cases that I 

make reference to in this survey involved RICO drug conspiracies. One of the cases was a RICO drug conspiracy 

involving a [redacted] gang. It was through trial testimony 

that I learned of the extensive use of court documents (particularly PreSentence Investigation Reports and Plea 

Agreements) in prison to identify cooperators.
110 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories Open-Ended Comments

Procedures for protecting defendantsIn coordination with the District Court, we have implemented a procedure to keep cooperation provisions of plea 

agreements under seal. Standard non-cooperation plea 

agreements are filed and appear on PACER. Cooperation 

provisions in all cases are contained in Supplemental Plea 

Agreements which are filed under seal using a single Magistrate (MJ) case number.

Procedures for protecting defendants; general comment about the 

frequency of harm; details of a specific incident

In every 5K motion there is a section about potential harm 

— most of the time the government says there are no 

known threats but that given the cooperation threats are a 

possibility — my experience has been that they disclose the 

threats orally at sidebar at sentencing, because they don’t 

want to write the details down, so we don’t have records 

and my memory is not great about individual cases. The 

most blatant example I had involved a [redacted] store selling T-shirts with the cooperator’s photo and the words 

“[cooperator’s name] is a snitch” — but the knowledge did 

not come from court, people learned of it during the investigative stage.

Details of a specific incident; general comments about the sources to 

identify cooperator

In [redacted], the defendant on supervised release in my 

case testified before a federal grand jury in an unrelated 

matter. He was murdered in [redacted] in [redacted]. It 

appears that the defendants in the unrelated matter found 

out about his grand jury testimony.

Procedures for protecting defendantsIn multiple Defendant drug cases where a Defendant has 

cooperated, I am seeing situations where the defense attorney and prosecutor schedule a meeting with me to explain 

the Defendant is cooperating; however, because of safety 

concerns for the defendant and his family members, they 

do not want the docket to reflect any notations to a sealed 

proceeding. Instead of the U.S. filing a sealed 5k motion, 

there is a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement to a specific sentence or to a specific range and the joint request by defense 

counsel and the prosecutor is to accept the plea agreement 

without making any reference on the record to the defendant’s cooperation for personal safety reasons. / / My clear 

preference would be for a sealed 5k motion for downward 

departure for substantial assistance; however, I have agreed 

to the off the record procedure requested by defense counsel and the prosecutor because I do not want to see any 

harm come to the defendant and/or his or her family members.

General comment about harm in 

prison/prison culture; general 

comment about the frequency of 

harm

In my cases, many of my clients have contacted me to obtain transcripts of their sentencing hearings, or copies of the 

dockets in their cases so that they can show other inmates 

that they did not cooperate. They have told me that other 

inmates require this information so that they can prove that 

they are not “snitches.”
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 111

Categories Open-Ended Comments

Details of a specific incident; general comments about the sources to 

identify cooperator

In one case prosecuted recently, the informant /witness was 

threatened after the defendant’s family posted the tapes of 

the undercover buys the informant made on YouTube. The 

tapes had been provided to the public defender as discovery. The public defender turned these over to the defendant’s family, and subsequently, the family posted the videos 

on-line. The office has addressed this problem with the 

public defender to ensure that such an episode will not be 

repeated.

Details of a specific incident; general comments about the sources to 

identify cooperator; general comment about harm in prison/prison 

culture; procedures for protecting 

defendants

In one case, the defendant was involved with members of 

violent known street gangs, such as [redacted], but who 

also would engage in unaffiliated acts of violence for hire in 

connection with their drug trafficking activities. The defendant used information obtained pursuant to the Jencks 

Act to ascertain the identities of potential witnesses, some 

of whom were incarcerated, some of whom had pled guilty 

but were at liberty (of these some received veiled threats not 

to testify and one was assaulted- presumably in connection 

with his anticipated testimony). This defendant also tried to 

provide economic assistance to one cooperator to buy his 

silence by providing commissary money and providing 

money to his family. / / In the third case, the defendants 

involved in assaulting a perceived cooperator were members of a violent ethnic criminal group. The assault occurred without any concrete proof that the alleged cooperator was, in fact, cooperating on their case. In fact, the person was not providing information on their case. The assault was videotaped in the federal jail facility. Additional 

comments provided via email: There are certain circumstances that may serve as signs to defendants or persons 

trying to identify who is cooperating with the government 

in a criminal case or ongoing investigation. For example, 

--- If the person has pled guilty and the sentence has 

been held in abeyance for any unusual length of time, usually more than 3 or 4 months.

--- If the person pled guilty to a prosecutor’s information as opposed to an indictment before there was an 

indictment filed.

--- Because incarcerated defendants who have been 

convicted by guilty plea (or sometimes trial) are pressured 

by other inmates to obtain a copy of their presentence report to prove they are not cooperators, our district’s Probation Department no longer mentions the defendant’s cooperation with the government or the possibility of a 5K1.1 

motion as a possible departure factor in the presentence 

reports. Any cooperation is addressed in the sentence recommendation, which is not sent to the prison officials, and 

is submitted to the court separately from the presentence 

report.
112 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories Open-Ended Comments

Details of a specific incident; general comment about harm in prison/prison cultureIn one instance, a defendant attempted to recruit an inmate 

incarcerated with the co-defendant cooperator to harm the 

cooperator. In another instance, a spouse of a co-defendant 

(who was also a defendant) in a drug conspiracy case was 

raped by members of a gang involved in the conspiracy 

because she agreed to cooperate with the government.

Details of a specific incident; comments about refusal out of fearIn one of the cases on which I worked as a magistrate judge, 

a confidential informant was murdered the day after agents 

arrested a number of participants in a drug conspiracy. In 

another case involving multiple defendants who were involved in a drug conspiracy, one of the [redacted] defendants who was a minor player in the conspiracy but who had 

information about at least one of the leaders of the conspiracy, declined an opportunity to cooperate with the Government out of concern for his family. In that case, we 

learned that another member of the conspiracy was paying 

the defendant’s attorney fees and was participating in decisions about the defense provided to the defendant. I removed the defense attorney and appointed new counsel for 

the defendant.

Procedures for protecting defendants; general comment about harm 

in prison/prison culture

In our Court [redacted] we have local rules that allow the 

sealing of such documents as Motions for 5Ki.i and 3553 

relief, Sentencing memorandum, Guilty Plea Memos and 

Agreements when cooperation of the pleading defendant is 

at issue. We cannot (and I would not) seal an entire case 

file, but orders to seal enough documents in a case will be 

revealing on the docket to those assisting a defendant target. Pre-sentence Investigation reports should not cite cooperation of any defendant, either. / Separating the cooperator(s) in a particular case who are all housed [in] the 

same facility is also a challenge, but the effort must be made 

by the prosecutors as well as the FDC and BOP.

Procedures for protecting defendantsIn our district, all sentencing memoranda, 5K motions, and 

plea agreement cooperation agreements are sealed by default. I believe this has been very effective in controlling the 

effect on cooperating defendants and witnesses. 
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 113

Categories Open-Ended Comments

General comment about the frequency of harm; procedures for 

protecting defendants; general 

comments about the sources to 

identify cooperator

In the [redacted], the United States Attorney’s Office 

(“USAO”) prosecutes a number of cases annually charging 

defendants who are members of violent street gangs, organized crime groups, and large-scale drug trafficking organizations. One of the central tenants of many of these organizations is that those who cooperate with law enforcement 

against these organizations are automatically targeted for 

murder or some other form of physical harm. As a result, it 

is not at all unusual for cooperating defendants and cooperating witnesses to receive threats directed by the criminal 

groups they are cooperating against. (Although, chiefly as a 

result of the great care that is typically taken to protect cooperating witnesses and defendants from harm, it is rare for 

these threats to materialize into actual harm that befalls 

these individuals.) / / As a result of the nature of the threat 

faced by cooperating witnesses and defendants who cooperating against some of the violent criminal organizations 

prosecuted in the [redacted], the USAO routinely seeks 

permission to file under seal with the court pleadings --

such as sentencing memoranda and plea agreements -- that 

disclose the fact a defendant or witness is cooperating with 

the government; and district courts in the [redacted] regularly provide authorization for the government to file such 

pleadings under seal. While this may provide some measure 

of protection for individuals who cooperate with the government, it is not a fool-proof method of concealing an 

individual’s cooperation from those who may want to do 

him or her harm, as the fact that such a pleading has been 

filed under seal may alone signal to a member of one of 

these groups that a particular individual is cooperating and 

these groups often need only to speculate that an individual 

is cooperating before seeking to do him or her harm. 

General comment about the frequency of harmIn the [redacted], we have a large percentage of defendants 

who cooperate with the government. The majority of 

threats are coming from drug cartel members who reside in 

[redacted] and travel back and forth across the border.

Most of the defendants who report the threats state they 

have been kidnapped, beaten, and threatened by the cartel.

The threats usually extend to the defendant’s family members as well.
114 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories Open-Ended Comments

General comment about the frequency of harm; general comments 

about the sources to identify cooperator

In the vast majority of the cases, rumors led to threats of 

harm or assault. However, the co-defendant or unindicted 

co-conspirator had no proof that the defendant was actually cooperating.

General comments about the 

sources to identify cooperator; details of a specific incident; procedures for protecting defendants

In this district both plea agreements outline the government’s intent to request a sentence reduction for cooperation and the Statement of Reasons is still considered by the 

Court as a public document and thus is available with the 

judgment on CM/ECF. / / Of the two offenders threatened 

while on supervised release -- one we made arrangements 

to transfer supervision to another district and the other one 

is currently in process of attempting a transfer. The current 

one being threatened was sentenced in a different district.

Procedures for protecting defendants; nothing to report; policy 

comments

In this district we have very few threats of harm. We believe 

taking actions to seal information for a minority of persons 

for the explicit reason of making the information more 

difficult to obtain, will harm the majority of our clients by 

making otherwise public information secret and by depriving them of potentially exculpatory or mitigating information (what agreements other similarly situated persons 

have obtained, how to compare others convicted of the 

same offense, etc.). We strongly oppose this idea for those 

reasons. In addition, some courts of appeals look unfavorably on sealing any documents and have strict rules as to 

when and how documents can be sealed.

Details of a specific incident; general comment about harm in prison/prison culture; general comments about the sources to identify 

cooperator

In [redacted], the defendant [redacted] was a local rap artist in [redacted]. [redacted] compiled and released a rap 

video on YouTube that identified (by name) government 

cooperators. The government was successful in having the 

video removed from YouTube. This occurred in [redacted].

On a separate matter, we have received information in the 

past that inmates in BOP custody were being required to 

provide other inmates with a copy of their presentence report in order to confirm that they were not cooperating 

with the government. No specific case references are [available].
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 115

Categories Open-Ended Comments

Details of a specific incident; general comments about the sources to 

identify cooperator; procedures for 

protecting defendants; procedures 

for protecting juries

In [redacted], the government arrested [redacted] people 

involved with a very violent drug conspiracy known as [redacted]. Most of those arrested were held at the Federal 

Detention Center, and although there were separation orders, the A.U.S.A. reported to the Court a large number of 

threats made by the organization leaders [redacted]. The 

organization took the position that even a defendant’s 

guilty plea qualified as cooperation, even if that defendant 

provided no further assistance against other co-defendants.

The Court broke the organization up into three groups for 

trial and tried four individuals in the first of the three 

groups, resulting in convictions for all four. The Court ordered an anonymous jury and the U.S. Marshals escorted 

jurors to and from the juror parking lot from undisclosed 

locations. None of the defendants has cooperated against

his or her co-defendants, though some have pleaded guilty. 

Those who have pleaded guilty have made clear that they 

are putting in a plea for themselves only, not agreeing to 

cooperate against any of their co-defendants.

General comments about the 

sources to identify cooperator

It appears most harm was done by people who knew them 

previously, not [through] court documents or information 

made public through judicial means.

General comment about the frequency of harm; general comments 

about the sources to identify cooperator

It appears that more uncharged witnesses (not defendantwitnesses) are threatened, than defendants. Additionally, it 

appears that frequently, at least at the earlier stages of the 

cases, the witnesses are identified through conclusions

drawn from discovery (even if redacted to protect identity 

for a time). Additionally, in many cases there are not actual 

threats, but an expressed fear by the defendant of cooperating due to concern for self or family. Many such defendants 

express concern through their counsel about the sealing of 

the cooperation agreement and how it appears on the 

court’s docket (such as whether there is a missing number 

on the docket).

General comment about the frequency of harm; general comment 

about harm in prison/prison culture

It is a recurrent theme. I could have continued to answer 

yes over and over again in this survey. I often read it in PSR 

where the officer states that the defendant and/or his family 

was threatened when they learned or suspected that he was 

cooperating. So I really wasn’t thinking of one specific case 

but of many. Everyone seems to find out in jail about who 

is a snitch!
116 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories Open-Ended Comments

Takes issue with the survey; procedures for protecting defendants; 

general comments about the 

sources to identify cooperator; general comment about the frequency 

of harm

It is almost impossible to know the exact number of witnesses or defendants who have been threatened from information learned or acquired from PACER. In our district, 

plea supplements contain the information about cooperation and the potential for downward departures. They are 

filed under seal. However, one can see that there is a sealed 

document by the fact that a numbered document is [missing]. Likewise, 5K1.1 motions are filed under seal. However, again the missing document number and the proximity 

to sentencing is a give away. The same is true for Rule 35 

motions, filed under seal with a missing number and shortly thereafter an Amended [Judgment] is filed. Furthermore, 

witnesses and cooperating defendants, when threatened, 

generally do not know how the assailant learned of their 

cooperation. 

Policy comments It is essential that we develop and implement on a national 

basis uniform procedures and practices to reduce or eliminate the risk of harm to cooperators arising out of public 

access to court records. My district, [redacted], has developed procedures to do so, but these will be of little effect 

unless [these] procedures, or something similar to them, 

are adopted throughout the country.

General comment about the frequency of harm; general comment 

about harm in prison/prison culture; procedures for protecting defendants; policy comments

It is increasingly true that defendant’s worry they will be 

asked, either during pre-trial incarceration or once placed 

in the Bureau of Prisons, for their plea paperwork to see if 

they have cooperated. Refusing to provide it is considered 

proof of cooperation. I have had a court allow me to submit 

the plea paperwork with a cryptic reference to a sealed document outlining the cooperation and its 5K benefits. We 

definitely need a way to help [defendants] who cooperate 

from being put in this predicament.

General comment about the frequency of harm; general comment 

about harm in prison/prison culture; general comments about the 

sources to identify cooperator

It is now regular BOP inmate practice to demand “papers”

to determine whether another provided cooperation and 

assistance to the government, or is a convicted sex offender 

where minors were involved. Inmates regularly request

copies of their docketing statement, judgment and commitment order, and statement of reasons section.

Nothing to report I’ve been in this position for less than a year, so my perspective on the questions is very limited.

Details of a specific incident; procedures for protecting defendants; 

general comments about the 

sources to identify cooperator

I’ve [only] been on the bench [redacted]...so not a lot of 

context to respond. I had one case where the potential for 

5K1.1 was mentioned in the plea agreement. Later, the FPD 

asked permission to substitute a revised plea agreement (so 

it would appear as the “original” [agreement] on the docket), deleting reference to cooperation because of threats 

conveyed to defendant’s family. My clerk has also reported 

anecdotal instances of “rough and [suspicious]” looking 

people coming to the [public] viewing terminal to see plea 

agreements and/or 5K motions.
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 117

Categories Open-Ended Comments

Details of a specific incident; general comments about the sources to 

identify cooperator

Just the one incident mentioned earlier. It occurred in a 

multi-defendant drug case. The witness was a defendant in 

a related multi-defendant drug case and was seen coming 

back from court. Unclear how one of the defendants (the 

one who threatened him) knew he had cooperated.

General comment about harm in 

prison/prison culture; general 

comment about the frequency of 

harm

Many clients who were sentenced to a BOP facility have 

requested court documents that confirm that they were not 

cooperators.

General comment about harm in 

prison/prison culture; general 

comment about the frequency of 

harm; procedures for protecting 

defendants; comments about refusal 

out of fear

Many of our clients request their paperwork after they report to BOP and tell us that if they do not prove they were 

not cooperating they will be in physical danger. In our district we routinely seal matters on the docket and close hearings that are related to cooperation. We do not track numbers - but we often have witnesses refuse to be interviewed 

by us in fear that cooperation will tag them as a “snitch”

and place them in physical danger.

General comment about the frequency of harmMany of the threats were made by the defendants appearing 

before me of actual and potential witnesses against them. I 

have seen correspondence and transcripts of phone calls 

containing such threats.

Procedures for protecting witnesses Many of those [threatened] went into witness protection.

General comment about harm in 

prison/prison culture; general 

comment about the frequency of 

harm

Many requests for transcripts because of demands from 

other inmates in prison to prove that the defendant was not 

a cooperator. Some threats to defendants whose sentencing 

hearings have been postponed when co-defendant trials are 

postponed because they are assumed to be cooperating.

Comments about refusal out of fear; 

general comment about harm in 

prison/prison culture; general 

comment about the frequency of 

harm; general comments about the 

sources to identify cooperator

Many times defendants will refuse to cooperate because of 

threats to family, friends or themselves. There is also the fear of 

the unknown when they reach BOP, as it is common 

knowledge that “cooperators” are targeted. Further, all of our 

plea agreements contain boilerplate language regarding cooperation, so anyone in this district could be identified as a cooperator even when they did not cooperate. We also receive 

many variances on factors other than cooperation, and defendants are concerned that the variances, though not related 

to cooperation, may target them in prison. We routinely give a 

copy of the sentencing memorandum we prepare to clients. 5K 

motions prepared by the government are not shared with us.

General comment about the frequency of harmMost cases involved illegal aliens with ties to drug cartels in 

[redacted]. Defendants feared for their [families’] safety. 

Whether actual threats or simply fear arising out of the retributive reputations of the cartels was the cause of reluctance to provide information, I cannot say.

Procedures for protecting defendants; general comments about the 

sources to identify cooperator

Most information is anecdotal. No hard details are available. It is our practice to seal any filing or proceeding that 

references cooperators, except the testimony of a cooperator in open court. 
118 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories Open-Ended Comments

General comment about the frequency of harm; general comments 

about the sources to identify cooperator

Most of the cases involve individuals in either pretrial detention or release status who were threatened by individuals (often co-defendants) who knew the “victims” were assisting the 

government either after arrest, or had cooperated with law 

enforcement prior to arrest. I believe very little of the information about cooperators was gleaned through court documents, mostly it was by word of mouth or from the street.

General comment about the frequency of harm; details of a specific 

incident

Most of the cases where I have clients who reported threats 

of harm arise in in drug conspiracy cases, mostly involving 

[redacted]. The reported threats have been both implied 

and explicit. The implied threats typically involve someone 

telling the defendant they know where he lives or where his 

family lives. One [explicit] threat involved discussions as to 

whether to cut the defendant’s fingers off or kill him.

General comment about the frequency of harm; general comments 

about the sources to identify cooperator

Most of the problems our clients face are because of the 

nature of their charges, eg child pornography cases. Those 

clients are very concerned about the privacy of their court 

files and records.

General comments about the 

sources to identify cooperator; 

nothing to report

Most of the threats came as a result of actual trial testimony 

by the defendants/offenders who were threatened. I have no 

information in any of the cases that points to court documents being used to identify the defendants/offenders as 

cooperators.

General comment about the frequency of harm; procedures for 

protecting defendants

Most requests to seal cases have been due to the protection 

of the ability of a defendant to cooperate without the possible targets learning of the Defendant’s agreement to cooperate which would impede the Defendant’s ability to lure 

into traps the government has devised for the cooperation. 

I have not heard of any person who was a witness to a case 

to whom a threat was made. 

Comments about refusal out of fear; 

general comment about harm in 

prison/prison culture

Mostly gang defendants and witnesses don’t want to cooperate because of actual or perceived harm and the need to 

prove they are not cooperators by sufficient documentation 

when they enter the bureau of prisons

Details of a specific incident my client that was harmed was attacked while in transit--he 

was threatened several other times, also while being transported to/from court or facilities

General comment about the frequency of harm; comments about 

refusal out of fear

My clients are concerned about harm to themselves or family in cooperation cases but I have not had any clients decline to cooperate for that reason.

Nothing to report My judgeship began in [redacted].
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 119

Categories Open-Ended Comments

General comment about the frequency of harm; general comment 

about harm in prison/prison culture; general comments about the 

sources to identify cooperator

My [only] [information] about possible harm to witnesses 

comes from occasional comments by agents or AUSAs that 

detained defendants have been “reaching out” to persons 

outside the jail to have them, in turn, contact persons believed to be [cooperators]. I don’t know how often this 

happens, but assume that it’s not uncommon. AUSAs & 

USMS Deputies would be better sources of data. / / I do 

know that prison inmates are being called on to get and 

provide to others copies of their PSRs and, perhaps, transcripts of sentencings. Docket sheets containing sealed plea 

agreements or sentencing [memoranda] area big red flag.

Takes issue with the survey My responses to the two previous questions left blank is: 

fewer than 10. 

Nothing to report N.A.

Nothing to report N/A

Nothing to report N/A

Nothing to report N/A

Nothing to report N/A

Nothing to report N/A

Nothing to report n/a

Nothing to report; procedures for 

protecting defendants

Neither my staff nor I can remember any instance in the 

past three years of defendants or witnesses being harmed or 

threatened because of that person’s cooperation with the 

government. In fact, I can’t remember any such instance in 

my [redacted] on the bench. / I know we are careful in my 

jurisdiction to seal sentencing memos and transcripts of 

sentencing hearings whenever cooperation is involved or at 

least whenever I am requested to do so by defense counsel 

or the government. It is also, of course, possible that we just 

haven’t heard of harms or threats that occur after our cases 

are closed but I am [sensitive] on the subject and would 

remember if it had come to my attention.

Takes issue with the survey; general 

comment about the frequency of 

harm; comments about refusal out 

of fear; procedures for protecting 

witnesses

Neither the USAO nor law enforcement agencies track this 

data, so we have been compelled to provide estimates. Further, it is not clear what the survey means by a witness 

“withdrawing an offer of cooperation” as opposed to “refusing cooperation.” Witnesses, especially in drug and violent crime cases, frequently live in urban areas where 

“snitching” carries enormous danger. Law enforcement 

agents commonly hit a wall of silence in a community, 

stemming largely from the fear that powerful groups will 

kill witnesses who are seen as providing information to the 

government. Frequently, this wall of silence can be penetrated only if we manage to arrest and detain many members of the group, freeing residents of fear of retaliation.
120 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories Open-Ended Comments

Nothing to report; procedures for 

protecting defendants; general 

comments about the sources to 

identify cooperator

No client has reported harm or threats of harm in the last 

three (3) years. Requests for docket info have decreased 

since the [redacted] has instituted a policy of sealing ALL 

plea agreements, not just those entitled Plea and Cooperation Agreements. Those who have asked in the last three (3) 

years do not report harm or threats of harm in their requests as those requests are probably being screened by 

those threatening/doing the harm, but that cannot be verified. 

Nothing to report No harm or threats occurred.

Nothing to report No incidents.

Nothing to report no threats occurred to my knowledge

Nothing to report No threats or harm that I am aware of

Nothing to report No threats, thus no change.

Nothing to report None

Nothing to report None known.

Nothing to report None of my cases that I supervised have experienced threats 

or harm.

Details of a specific incident; comments about refusal out of fearNone of my clients were actually harmed. I had one defendant whose family in another country was threatened. 

He refused to cooperate. 

Nothing to report None of these matters have been brought to my attention.

Nothing to report None that I can recall, after checking with my Courtroom 

Deputy and my Probation Officer liaison.

Nothing to report None that I know of.

Nothing to report not applicable

Nothing to report not applicable, because [I’m] not aware of any such threat 

to a witness or defendant in any of my cases.

Nothing to report Not aware of any harm or threat of harm

Nothing to report Not sure this is a real issue in our district.

General comment about the frequency of harm; policy comments; 

takes issue with the survey; comments about refusal out of fear

Obviously, gang and prison inmate prosecution create the 

greatest threat of actual violence and potential for frightening witnesses from testifying. While “transparency” is at the 

bedrock of our judicial system, with gang, organized crime, 

and prison prosecutions transparency comes at a high price 

when cooperators are an integral part of the prosecution or 

investigation. Questions 2 and 4 require a highly speculative response. My experience shows that a large number of 

potential witnesses and defendants are [deterred] and 

therefore refuse to cooperate because they perceive danger 

to themselves or their families. I would [not] know if they 

didn’t tell me or refuse an offer, so, my quantification of the 

numbers is speculative.
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 121

Categories Open-Ended Comments

Details of a specific incident; procedures for protecting defendantsOn the first defendant, that individual was placed in protective custody after being harmed/shot. / With respect to the 

second defendant, that individual was housed in protective 

custody in a hotel. / With respect to the third defendant, 

that individual had physical harm but declined any protective custody.

Details of a specific incident; procedures for protecting defendantsOne additional threat to report (can’t go back in survey).

Offender on supervised release, cooperated against fellow 

gang members, separated while in custody and USPO work 

to keep him separate during supervision activities. Threat 

was actual physical harm.

Details of a specific incident; procedures for protecting defendantsOne case in which a defendant on TSR was murdered after 

[testifying] in court (gang related) and another case were we 

had to transfer or move a pretrial defendant to another district.

Details of a specific incident; general comment about the frequency 

of harm; general comment about 

harm in prison/prison culture; procedures for protecting defendants; 

comments about refusal out of fear

One client got [his] face slashed in as a result of his cooperation. Numerous clients request information in order to show 

they did not cooperate. This number includes clients who did 

cooperate, but who may not have received a sentence reduction or whose plea agreement did not contain cooperation 

language. These clients believe they will be harmed if other 

inmates believe or find out the client cooperated. Two clients 

requested having solitary confinement protection because 

they could not provide the ECF docket report to other inmates, since the ECF docket report would show a reduction 

for cooperating with the government. No one recalls any 

instances where witnesses were threatened. Third party cooperators have backed out due to perceived danger.

Details of a specific incident; procedures for protecting defendantsone client had to be placed in the BOP witness protection 

program due to the severity of the threats against him by 

other BOP inmates.

Details of a specific incident; comments about refusal out of fear; 

general comment about the frequency of harm; general comment 

about harm in prison/prison culture

One client knew of a witness murdered in [redacted]. He 

flatly refused to cooperate. He received life after conviction 

at trial. I have many clients who ask for ‘fake’ documents.

One client was beaten while in prison and did lengthy time 

in segregation. This problem has increased much in last 2 

years. Not sure why.

Details of a specific incident; Takes 

issue with the survey

One defendant was charged with witness intimidation. Also, 

I assume the survey includes the gov’t threatening witnesses 

with charges or perjury, misprision, and/or conspiracy.

Details of a specific incident One instance of a threat to family members. This was addressed by both counsel. If my docket is any example, 

threats and harm do not appear to be a significant problem 

in this district.

Details of a specific incident One of the cases was actively cooperating. The other case 

involved co-defendants who had been boyfriend/girlfriend 

and were both out on release.
122 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories Open-Ended Comments

General comment about harm in 

prison/prison culture; comments 

about refusal out of fear; general 

comments about the sources to 

identify cooperator

One of the main concerns regarding defendants /offenders 

in our district is the safety valve requirement. Once in custody and after they plea, [an] inmate has to demonstrate to 

other inmates that he/she is not cooperating with the government. As proof of this, they have to show their plea 

agreement and [often] they are not willing to comply with 

the safety valve for fear of retaliation

Details of a specific incident; procedures for protecting defendantsOne offender was victimized twice by [redacted] gang 

members in [redacted]. He was placed in a hotel for 30 days 

for safety and relocated to [redacted].

Procedures for protecting witnesses; 

details of a specific incident

One witness was placed in the WITSEC program after cooperating. Testimony was not needed because all defendants pleaded guilty. The witness was not a successful participant in the programs due to rule violations.

General comment about the frequency of harm; policy comments; 

procedures for protecting defendants

Other than a general concern about a possible threat, I am 

unaware of a specific threat or attacks made to a specific 

defendant /witness, and I have handled a fairly heavy criminal docket involving “drugs and guns” for years. AUSAs 

have also mentioned to me that until recently there was no 

reason for alarm, but all of a sudden there is a big push either by defense lawyers and/or DOJ to have everything 

sealed for 35b’s or 5k1s. This is despite that there is not one 

documented incident that I am aware of in all the cases that 

I have handled of a problem. Many are advocating sealing 

everything of a cooperative nature now but this is in my 

opinion inconsistent with any empirical evidence that i am 

aware of and the first amendment right of the public to 

know about court proceedings and filings. / / / 

General comment about the frequency of harm; procedures for 

protecting defendants

Our district has had numerous [redacted] cases and security is usually increased during trials/sentencings because of 

rumors of threats. I have very limited information regarding those threats or rumors.

Procedures for protecting defendants; general comment about the 

frequency of harm; general comments about the sources to identify 

cooperator

Our practices have changed in recent years to make docket 

and in court references more oblique and less suggestive of 

cooperation. Often we [refrain] from discuss[ing] 5K1 

documents and we [camouflage] them on the docket. We 

have been informed with increasing frequency that codefendants purchase transcripts of hearings regarding an alleged cooperating defendant and/or witness and manage to 

access electronic dockets with help from others on the outside. These procedures require some careful management 

by the judge and others involved in the process.

General comment about the frequency of harmPlease keep in mind that my courthouse sits [redacted]. I 

hear from hundreds of defendants that they were threatened and/or harmed in [redacted] immediately prior their 

offenses in the [redacted]. For those who believe that narcotics traffickers are not dangerous criminals need to come 

sit in my court and hear/see the real stories of what happens 

in [redacted] by such traffickers.
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 123

Categories Open-Ended Comments

Nothing to report Please note that my statistical sample is quite small, in that I 

am a relatively new judge ([redacted] on the bench).

General comment about the frequency of harmPrimarily I recall threats against AUSAs and/or one defense 

or public defender.

General comment about harm in 

prison/prison culture

Prison gangs are an on-going problem.

General comment about the frequency of harmReported threats typically are brought to the court’s [attention] by defense attorneys during the sentencing hearing, 

and mostly pertain to families outside the United States in 

drug trafficking cases. I am unaware of any reported threats 

being carried out. 

General comment about the frequency of harm; details of a specific 

incident

Reports of threats against cooperating defendants are routine in this district. Actual harm is more rare, but it occurs.

I have been personally involved in two cases in [redacted] 

in which witnesses were murdered.

General comment about harm in 

prison/prison culture; procedures 

for protecting defendants

Seems to me the real problem is what occurs after the cooperators begin serving a prison sentence. It is there that fellow prisoners request “proof” that the individual did not 

cooperate. It’s there, too, where some have to seek refuge in 

the SHU. At least in my experience, it isn’t that big of a 

problem pretrial. 

General comment about the frequency of harm; general comments 

about the sources to identify cooperator

Some cooperators are so fearful that they do not want to 

receive 5K1.1 reductions to their sentences, nor do they 

want any mention of cooperation in court records or in 

court proceedings. In some instances, defendants who have 

not cooperated, or those who did cooperate but did not 

want a sentence reduction, request copies of the sentencing 

transcript and presentence report so that they can “prove”

that did not cooperate.

General comment about the frequency of harm; general comments 

about the sources to identify cooperator; procedures for protecting 

defendants

Some of the threats were vague in my opinion. I only recall 

one case with specificity, but believe the frequency of the 

issue has not increased in the last year. Frankly, when a 

motion is filed by the government under seal at or about 

the time of the defendant’s sentencing-- if it is identified as 

a motion filed by the government, a reader of the docket 

could [easily] surmise the sealed motion is a 5K1.1. I am 

unsure but believe the “sealed motions” are now listed as 

sealed documents and the filer is not identified. This is how 

it should be.

Details of a specific incident The answers to the questions on this page are [estimates] 

based on conversations with prosecutors in our office.
124 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories Open-Ended Comments

Procedures for protecting defendants; policy commentsThe better prosecutors and criminal defense bar have become much more sophisticated in keeping documentation 

reflecting cooperation by third party witnesses as well as 

defendants out of the public eye- i.e. no initial formal arrest 

paper work and/or bond allowing the defendant to cooperate fully prior to being formally charged which in many 

instances is driven by a post-cooperation negotiated plea to 

a particular offense that is actually capped in terms of available sentencing options- such as the 48 month maximum 

sentence for use of the telephone in a drug conspiracy. In 

other instances plea agreements are negotiated on the basis 

of specific relevant conduct that may defacto serve to cap 

the sentence without the Court necessarily having to formally become involved with the matter of the defendant’s 

cooperation. / / Finally, given the fact that the sentencing 

guidelines are advisory, along with today’s more infrequent 

use of the 21 U.S.C. 851 enhancement, there are more cases 

being processed without the Court ever having to address 

the subject of a reduced sentence under U.S.S.G. 5K1.1 or 

Rule 35(b). / / All of that said, there will never be a perfect 

solution to the dilemmas faced by defendants, witnesses, 

prosecutors, defense attorneys, as well we, as judges. All we 

might do collectively is to reduce where possible the wrong 

people learning about who is or has been a cooperating 

defendant or witness. Truly, the long-standing practice of 

sealing documents as well as formal sentencing hearings has 

not served the laudatory goal of providing anything close to 

a measure of protection for cooperating defendants. / 

Details of a specific incident; general comments about the sources to 

identify cooperator; general comment about the frequency of harm

The case I described earlier in this survey was one in which, 

if I recall correctly, a warrant was not sealed and retaliation 

was either threatened or likely. I am aware of other anecdotal instances in which prosecutors and defense attorneys 

have felt retaliation was likely, but I am not aware of any 

details. Often these instances are revealed when a prosecutor or defense attorney asks during sentencing to disclose 

cooperation information at the bench.

Details of a specific incident; general comments about the sources to 

identify cooperator

The case [referenced] was [redacted], in which [redacted], a 

member of [redacted], learned that another member of 

[redacted], [redacted], was quoted in [redacted] presentence report as identifying [redacted] as a made member of 

the [redacted]. The page from the presentence report was 

shown to [redacted], [redacted], who ordered a hit--the 

murder--of [redacted]. [redacted] was convicted of the 

murder at trial.
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 125

Categories Open-Ended Comments

General comment about the frequency of harm; general comment 

about harm in prison/prison culture; procedures for protecting defendants

The [climate] is worsening for everyone, cooperators and 

non-cooperators, especially in prison. It is reported by clients in our District and nationwide that when you arrive in 

prison you are given a certain length of time to prove 

through your documents that you are not a snitch. Without 

such proof, you are not allowed safe access to the prison 

yard. If you can’t prove that you are not a snitch you end 

up in segregation or bouncing from prison to prison or 

worse.

General comment about harm in 

prison/prison culture; general 

comments about the sources to 

identify cooperator; general comment about the frequency of harm

The consistent theme that we have heard about regarding 

defendants or offenders in our District, is incarcerated offenders being coerced or threatened while in BOP custody 

or RRC facility (pre-release) if they did not try to get a copy 

of their presentence investigation, or plea agreement and 

provide it to the threatening party. The threatening party is 

usually doing this to ascertain whether an offender has been 

a cooperating witness or received a sentence reduction for 

cooperation (snitching) to government officials. 

Details of a specific incident; general comments about the sources to 

identify cooperator; general comment about harm in prison/prison 

culture; procedures for protecting 

defendants

The Defendant in question not only made a deal with the 

Government, he actually testified at a jury trial against the 

other two defendants. There was no question but that his 

file contained plea deal specifics, and that the co defendants 

knew what the deal was (it was brought out on cross examination before the jury). When he went to prison for his 

part in the crimes, we did everything we could to protect 

his location, as well as his identity, but it somehow leaked 

about his true identity.

Details of a specific incident The defendant referenced was residing in our District and 

case agents relocated the individual to another District. 

Details of a specific incident The defendant/witness referred to in this survey is the same 

person.

Procedures for protecting defendants; general comment about the 

frequency of harm

The district court has adopted split plea procedure by 

which cooperation agreements are protected. We have seen 

no change in the level of threats to witnesses and/or cooperating defendants based on this procedure.

Procedures for protecting witnesses; 

general comments about the 

sources to identify cooperator; general comment about the frequency 

of harm; general comment about 

harm in prison/prison culture

The [redacted] attempts to obtain protective orders in cases 

involving cooperating witnesses, and does not allow that 

information in the jails. Nonetheless, targets and defendants infer who the cooperators are from review of their discovery and spread the word about their cooperation in the 

jail. We have prosecuted two witness retaliation cases in the 

past three years, and have investigated several others. In the 

past several years, threats against cooperators have increased, and pre-trial separation orders have been ineffective in avoiding confrontations.

Procedures for protecting defendants; general comments about the 

sources to identify cooperator

The documents where it was apparent that someone was 

cooperating were filed under seal. However, sophisticated 

reviewers of docket entries usually presume that that means 

cooperation.
126 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories Open-Ended Comments

Nothing to report The entire current staff of probation officers were polled.

There were no other cases identified.

Details of a specific incident; general comment about harm in prison/prison culture; procedures for 

protecting defendants; general 

comment about the frequency of 

harm

The first case I mentioned involved very serious assaults on 

the defendant who provided useful cooperation relating to 

a number of cases. He was threatened and then beaten in 

two different prisons before finally being provided what 

appears to be secure housing. He was also in pretrial detention for many years in unacceptable segregated isolation 

because of the recognition he was in the process or would 

cooperate. (In my experience, defendants who cooperate 

during pretrial supervision often end up being housed in 

the most segregated and restrictive conditions.) This particular defendant’s son, who was incarcerated in a state facility, was also threatened in connection with his father’s 

cooperation. Viable threats were made against the family 

members also—who as a result had to move from their 

home. / / The main pattern involved in other cases involves 

defendants who are in pretrial detention who face threats 

on the safety and welfare of the family members at home in 

[redacted] or [redacted] if they cooperate. We often do not 

end up knowing what happens under these circumstances.

These defendants usually are too scared to even alert authorities regarding the threats. / / 

Takes issue with the survey; general 

comment about the frequency of 

harm; general comment about 

harm in prison/prison culture; general comments about the sources to 

identify cooperator; procedures for 

protecting defendants; policy comments

The format of this survey was troublesome for me because 

this is not a yes/no/# of cases issue. I don’t have exact numbers, but I can say that in the last 5 years, the number of 

present and former clients who have demanded that I provide them their discovery or sentencing documents to show 

to other inmates to prove that they are not cooperating has 

skyrocketed. The demand to see PSR’s is very high also, 

which causes problems for inmates because a lot of 

jails/prisons will not allow inmates to receive them in the 

mail. Many inmates are branded as snitches who are not 

actually cooperating, but there is often no way to prove that 

they are not cooperators. Additionally, a lot of my clients 

do not want to ask to go into PC because it is a horrible way 

to serve their sentences and the fact that they requested PC 

once will follow them around to other institutions and increase the likelihood that they will be placed their against 

their wills, for institutional safety. I honestly don’t know 

how to balance a defendant’s right to review the evidence 

against him with protecting him from harm based on suspicion, sometimes baseless, that he is cooperating.

General comment about the frequency of harm; procedures for 

protecting defendants; general 

comments about the sources to 

identify cooperator

The government regularly claims that cooperators are at 

risk but have never cited an example. AUSAs want files 

sealed to conceal cooperation agreements even AFTER the 

cooperators testified in open court in front of the defendant. Fear is rampant. I have a [redacted] participant who 

testified twice against a [co-conspirator] in a case which 

lasted more [than] [redacted]. She was never concerned. 
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 127

Categories Open-Ended Comments

Procedures for protecting defendants; policy commentsThe harm or threats of harm experienced by my clients was 

directly related to the practice of one Judge who refused to 

seal documents in his cases and NOT to the practice or Local Rule with respect to sealing. This particular Judge’s philosophy was ‘this is a public courtroom, the public should 

have access.’ As a consequence, and to avoid harm, many 

clients were advised of his practice and urged to factor that 

practice into the decision on whether or not to offer assistance.

Details of a specific incident The last two cases, individuals went to the homes of defendants’ families and threatened them, if defendant cooperated.

General comment about the frequency of harm; general comments 

about the sources to identify cooperator

The most common threats and attempted acts of harms, 

that I have encountered, occur when a defendant or a witness is a member of a well knit group of friends, gang 

members or connected families. Some of the acts of intimidation are not assisted by the contents of court orders, 

opinions or events in open court. Community knowledge 

of events is a common source of information about who is 

(or might be) allied with police or prosecution. But there 

are incidents where a witness or a defendant’s role for the 

prosecution is uncovered only because lawyers and judges 

do not consider the danger to cooperators. There are general incentives (in gang cases) to promote a policy of harming snitches within local culture. 

General comment about the frequency of harm; general comments 

about the sources to identify cooperator; details of a specific incident

The most frequent [occurrence] of threats is with cooperating non-defendant witnesses. Their cooperation is revealed 

through discovery: disclosure of immunity letters and interview reports. I had one witness kidnapped and beaten 

due to cooperation during investigation. Several other witnesses have been threatened once the witness list for trial is 

released.

Takes issue with the survey; general 

comment about the frequency of 

harm

The number 50 is a plug number because you would not 

accept a three figure number. These sorts of threats happen 

so routinely in gang and drug cases that i have lost count. 

The number of times I have become aware of such threats is 

EASILY in the hundreds. 

General comment about the frequency of harm; procedures for 

protecting defendants; general 

comments about the sources to 

identify cooperator

The number of instances of threats were down in 2014 because the number of cases were down dramatically. Most 

defendants request that counsel alter court documents because inmates demand the plea agreements, court docket 

entries, and a [transcript] of the proceedings. If the inmate 

does not turn over the documents, they claim they are beaten. Sealing the documents would not be helpful in these 

cases. The larger problem is that co-defendants learn of 

cooperation against them and then disseminate the information to other co-defendants or unindicted coconspirators. Mentally challenged defendants and older 

defendants seem to particularly be at risk.
128 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories Open-Ended Comments

Procedures for protecting defendants; general comment about the 

frequency of harm; general comments about the sources to identify 

cooperator

Additional comments provided over email: For more than 

three years we have following a practice of attaching a 

sealed supplement to every Statement in Advance of Plea 

regardless or whether there is a cooperation agreement or 

not. We do this to avoid it being apparent on the docket 

whether there is a cooperation agreement. Prior to our 

court adopting this practice, we received regular comments 

from counsel that defendants were subjected to threats and 

accusations once they arrived at the prison. I have not received similar comments since we adopted this practice. I 

hope this may be of help.

Takes issue with the survey; general 

comment about the frequency of 

harm; comments about refusal out 

of fear; procedures for protecting 

witnesses; general comments about 

the sources to identify cooperator; 

general comment about harm in 

prison/prison culture

The numbers listed above are only place holders to enable 

us to complete the survey. What numbers we do have and 

the relevant explanations are attached below. / / Not including the defendants regarding whom you’ve provided 

information in this survey, how many more defendants 

from cases prosecuted by your office have you learned were 

harmed or threatened in the past three years? / / 113 – This 

number is based on separation memos filed with the USMS 

to keep cooperators separated due to safety concerns and 

covers the years 2012 thru 2014. It may overstate the number of threats from co-defendants as most of these separation requests are based on concerns of AUSAs and may not 

necessarily involve an actual threat. / / Not including the 

witnesses regarding whom you’ve provided information in 

this survey, how many more witnesses from cases prosecuted by your office have you learned were harmed or threatened in the past three years? / / 22 – This number is based 

on the number of times the USAO provided assistance to 

witnesses to relocate due to concerns for their safety. This 

number probably under-estimates the actual number as it 

does not include those witnesses assisted by investigative 

agencies or witnesses who relocate on their own. / / / In the 

past three years, how many defendants withdrew offers of 

cooperation because of actual or threatened harm? / / While 

there is anecdotal evidence of defendants who withdraw 

offers of cooperation out of fear of retaliation, exact numbers are not known. But it is believed to be rare. / / In the 

past three years, how many defendants refused cooperation 

because of actual or threatened harm? / / We do not keep 

records of defendants who refuse to cooperate because of 

actual or threatened harm. However, regularly we do have 

defendants who offer to plead guilty and decline to cooperate in any way against their co-defendants for fear of retaliation. / / In the past three years, how many witnesses withdrew offers of cooperation because of actual or threatened 

harm? / / Again, we have no specific number; it does happen, but it is rare. / / In the past three years, how many witnesses refused cooperation because of actual or threatened 

harm? / / Unknown / / / Please use the space below to pro-
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 129

Categories Open-Ended Comments

vide any additional information about harm or threats of 

harm experienced by defendants and/or witnesses (or their 

family or friends) from cases prosecuted by your office in 

the past three years. / / In every case involving gangs, illegal 

narcotics, violent crime and now even some white collar 

crimes, our office is very sensitive to the safety of cooperators, be they defendants or witnesses. And while we don’t 

currently have a specific system for tracking threats against 

cooperators, anecdotally, we know it happens regularly. / / 

In the last three years, the U.S. Attorney’s Office has provided assistance in [redacted] different cases to witnesses 

and/or their families to temporarily or permanently relocate due to concern for their safety as a result of their cooperation with the government. And while not specific to the 

last three years, people have been murdered on suspicion of 

being a government witness, even when they were not. In 

the same time period, our office has sponsored [redacted] 

defendants to the Federal Witness Security Program, and 

we anticipate [redacted] more this year. / / There are several 

ways by which cooperation becomes known. The criminal 

element has its own intelligence system which can be very 

effective. In a recent case we learned members of a gang 

were accessing PACER to look for documents to confirm 

cooperation. The most common method to signal cooperation seems to be the delay between a guilty plea and sentencing. If the defendant is not sentenced in a timely manner and removed to BOP, he is suspected of cooperating 

and may be at risk. Even at BOP, inmates are demanding 

that newly arrived inmates provide copies of their plea 

agreements or transcripts of plea proceedings to verify they 

were not cooperators. / / At times, as a result of a motions 

hearing or of the discovery process, witness information is 

obtained. Most of the direct assistance to witness mentioned above [redacted] is a result of one of these two 

events. / /

Comments about refusal out of fear; 

details of a specific incident; general 

comments about the sources to 

identify cooperator; general comment about the frequency of harm

The offenders are reluctant to report the threats/harm to 

law enforcement since in some instances, the individuals 

reside in the same community; some have gone back to 

their prior criminal associates to seek support--could pose a 

risk to returning to the “gang lifestyle;” all incidents have 

been reported to federal or local authorities, but very little 

action has been taken; one offender asked for political [asylum] as threat was overseas; offenders are not aware of how 

the information “leaked and the threats are coming by way 

of messages sent by unknown individuals or means (e.g., 

unknown texts, callers).

Details of a specific incident; general comments about the sources to 

identify cooperator

The one case I recall involved a witness testifying at trial, 

and the threats came from defendant’s family. 
130 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories Open-Ended Comments

Details of a specific incident The only cases reported as possible threats involved codefendants (both female) who has been continuously 

threatened and abused throughout the course of the offense 

generally. Once they made the decision to cooperate, there 

were no further threats or intimidation, but the women 

remain fearful based on both actual and threatened harm to 

them during the course of the offense. There is nothing to 

indicate that the fact of their cooperation resulted in additional threats or actual harm in either case.

Details of a specific incident The only incident I am aware of is the alleged murder of an 

FBI informant in a bank robbery case. I do not recall the 

details of how the informant’s identity may have been disclosed. The U.S. Attorney never prosecuted the murder. He 

would have additional information that I do not have.

General comment about the frequency of harmThe only information the office has relative to threats are a 

number of allegations from defense attorneys that a client 

or family member was threatened. None of the allegations 

have been confirmed as being valid or related to the case 

being prosecuted.

Details of a specific incident The prison guard was accused of “diming” the defendant.

Never able to verify.

General comment about the frequency of harm; general comment 

about harm in prison/prison culture; general comments about the 

sources to identify cooperator

The rate of former clients (defendants) incarcerated at BOP 

facilities requesting copies of the their plea agreement, final 

judgment order, docket sheet, and sentencing transcripts, 

rose dramatically in calendar year 2014.

General comments about the 

sources to identify cooperator; general comment about the frequency 

of harm; procedures for protecting 

defendants; general comment about 

harm in prison/prison culture

The Rule 35 and 5K process is problematic. Our judges are 

resistant to routinely sealing these motions. We are increasingly hearing from cooperators about information taken 

from public filings being posted on sites such as “Who’s a 

Rat”. Additionally, threats to witnesses and cooperating 

defendants often result when the defendant learns from the 

discovery process that a particular co-defendant or witness 

is cooperating. Lately, we have begun hearing from cooperators in the BOP that when they leave their assigned institution on an ASR they are branded a cooperator and are retaliated against when they return.

Takes issue with the survey; general 

comment about the frequency of 

harm; comments about refusal out 

of fear; details of a specific incident; 

general comments about the 

sources to identify cooperator

The survey asked for overall numbers regarding harm or 

threats of harm to defendants and witnesses over the last 

three years. Our office does not have a system that captures 

such data, and therefore accurate numbers were difficult to 

collect. Individual Assistant United States Attorneys who 

are currently in the office tried to provide information 

based on their recollection of cases and incidents. Accordingly, we do not feel like we have an adequate quantitative 

result. Moreover, the actual numbers reported do not provide an adequate picture of the seriousness of the problem 

as, in our District, the fear of being identified as a cooperator because of fear of harm or retaliation has dramatically
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 131

Categories Open-Ended Comments

reduced the number of individuals willing to provide information to the government and testify against others.

Indeed, the experience in our District is that we are unable 

to get individuals to cooperate because of their fear that 

something will happen to them or their family if they do.

This seems to be an increasing problem over the years. One 

reason for this change is the increased focus on drug trafficking organizations with connections to [redacted]. Defendants and witnesses are worried about violence against 

themselves as well as their families in [redacted]. For example, one AUSA noted that in her last three cases that involved drug trafficking organizations that had connections 

to [redacted] (all large, multi-defendant cases, which used 

wiretaps), none of the defendants or putative defendants 

would cooperate for fear of retaliation against them or their 

families, both in [redacted] and [redacted]. In addition, in 

the violent crime cases, witnesses will often refuse to provide information, from the earliest stages of the investigation, to law enforcement for fear of retaliation. Even when 

we have had success in obtaining their testimony through 

grand jury testimony, these same witnesses will often refuse 

to testify at trial or will provide [a] different version at trial.

The witnesses do not want to be perceived as cooperating 

with the government. / / Accordingly, in response to the 

questions above regarding how many witnesses and defendants refused cooperation because of actual or threatened harm, the answer that we want to provide is “many.”

A precise number is not available. It is very difficult for us 

to capture how many witnesses and defendants have told us 

that do not want to cooperate because of the risk. It seems 

to happen regularly in violent crime and drug trafficking 

cases. / / In addition, the stigma of being a cooperator/perceived as a cooperator seems to be so problematic 

that we have heard from defense counsel that even if their 

client/defendants provide safety valve proffers pursuant to 

USSG 5C1.2, they receive word from co-defendants/others 

in the organization that they are at risk of retaliation. The 

number of safety valve proffers has reduced dramatically, 

and the repercussions of refusal are less significant (since 

there has been a policy decision to apply few mandatory 

minimum sentences in drug cases). / / The document that 

most signals that someone is cooperating is a sealed plea 

agreement. If a plea agreement is sealed, it is a “red flag”

alerting others that a particular defendant is cooperating, as 

there is no other reason to seal the plea agreement. / / 

Moreover, in most of our threat incidents, the cooperating 

witnesses/defendants were also identified through the discovery process. Many witnesses had to be moved for their 

safety. / 
132 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories Open-Ended Comments

Details of a specific incident The threats arose in a RICO case involving a gang. Some of 

the members of the gang cooperated with the Government, 

and they and their families were subjected to threats from 

the gang.

General comment about the frequency of harmThe threats I see only arise in (1) gun prosecutions of street 

gang members and (2) drug cases in which the witness or 

defendant has direct ties to [redacted] dealers. 

Details of a specific incident; general comment about the frequency 

of harm

The threats involved were between rival families while a co-

[defendant] who was a member of one family was cooperating against a member of another family during a co-

[defendant’s] trial. These types of threats are somewhat 

typical between the large extended families [redacted]. 

General comments about the 

sources to identify cooperator; details of a specific incident; general 

comment about the frequency of 

harm

The USAO for the [redacted] prosecutes major crimes 

committed by or against [redacted]. In such cases cooperators are readily identified by defendants and their families. 

This circumstance routinely leads to attempts to intimidate 

witnesses. Additionally, in at least one public corruption 

case from a [redacted] who cooperated with the government as a witness was the target of an attempt to oust him 

from office. That effort is believed to be motivated by a 

desire to retaliate against the witness for his cooperation. / /

/ 

Details of a specific incident; general comment about the frequency 

of harm; policy comments; procedures for protecting defendants; 

general comments about the 

sources to identify cooperator

The worst case I had involved the murder of several family 

members of two defendants (mother and son) to punish 

them for losing a substantial amount of contraband and 

also to intimidate them into not cooperating. Credible 

threats against defendants are frequent. I do not recall a 

precise number, but they are credible enough to keep the 

defendant from cooperating and receiving a lower sentence. 

Additional comments provided over phone: Respondent 

completed the survey with information, but he really focused on the last year and not the last three years. He said 

he feels like this happens 2-4 times per year in his district, 

and it is most often the defendants. Defendants will qualify 

for the “safety valve” but then not take it out of concern of 

being harmed.

He suggested that the committees consider two levels for a 

filing system. Current CM/ECF only protects information 

through sealing. The sealed event still provides a record, 

and drug traffickers know how to read the dockets for what 

this sealed information is really saying. If there were a public version and a private version of the docket you could 

better protect the information. Sealing everything just triggers an alarm.

He had a case involving a drug conspiracy where the main 

defendant was the brother of a high level member of a drug 

cartel. He told his lawyer he would not cooperate because 

he was concerned about the safety of his family and his 
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 133

Categories Open-Ended Comments

wife’s family back [redacted]. The lawyer had the [redacted] contact people in [redacted] to obtain information 

about the cartel [redacted]. This information was provided 

to federal authorities so the defendant could receive the 

benefits of cooperation. Nothing was ever signed, and the 

judge was made aware of the cooperation only through 

conversations with counsel, both prosecution and defense.

If there were a private version of the docket this information could be recorded, even noted in a pre-sentence 

report.

General comment about the frequency of harm; details of a specific 

incident; general comments about 

the sources to identify cooperator; 

procedures for protecting defendants

There are frequently threats of harm to defendants’ families 

since my docket is close to [redacted]. In specific cases, 

such as the [redacted] trial, there were threats to defendants, witnesses, families, etc. In the gang conspiracy cases, 

there are usually threats to defendants, witnesses and family 

members. I am not aware of any documents [identifying] 

any person individually, but, of course, I do not know what 

happens once the BOP gets custody. All 5K motions and 

orders are filed as are Rule 35 motions and orders and Presentencing memos are also sealed at sentencings, but have

to be unsealed for appeal and other post sentencing actions.

Nothing to report There has been no actual physical harm to a defendant to 

my knowledge. Defendants are more concerned with perceived harm and very few [ever] receive an actual threat of 

harm.

General comment about harm in 

prison/prison culture; general 

comment about the frequency of 

harm; general comments about the 

sources to identify cooperator; procedures for protecting defendants

There is a disconnect in the Bureau of Prisons between 

Washington senior management and the experience on the 

ground. I believe senior management has expressed the 

view that harm to cooperators while incarcerated is minimal. We have a federal prison in the district and have talked 

to the warden. He has indicated that the problem is significant and half of his [Special] Housing population consists 

of cooperators in protective custody. There are also a variety of other means those intent on harming cooperators are 

using to gather cooperation data. I presume there will be 

space elsewhere in the survey to report those findings. Additional comments provided in email: Those who are seeking to identify and verify cooperation of various defendants 

are extremely sophisticated. They are using a variety of 

means to gather information. By way of example, they are 

requiring incarcerated, suspected cooperators to obtain a 

copy of their judgment and turn it over to the prison gangs.

There is apparently no BOP policy precluding this. They are 

requiring cooperator members’ families to obtain transcripts and judgments so that they can compare sentencing 

exposure with sentencing results, and such documents 

clearly reflect cooperation without expressly saying so.

In this District, we are using all means at our disposal to 

refrain from disclosing cooperation, including sealed doc-
134 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories Open-Ended Comments

uments, sealed proceedings and attachments to the judgment, among others. However, those protocols are not 

eliminating the problem.

There is also a developing trend in our Circuit jurisprudence that seems oblivious to the cooperation issue. We do 

not discuss cooperation in the context of a plea, but we 

fully recognize that the prospect of a cooperation departure 

is a prime motivating factor for the plea. The Circuit has 

issued some opinions that question the absence of such a 

conversation during the Rule 11 plea colloquy.

This entire problem is national in scope, and would benefit 

from a national policy. However, if there continues to be a 

disconnect between BOP’s national management and prison officials on the ground, I am not sure that any policy 

will alleviate the problem.

General comment about harm in 

prison/prison culture; general 

comment about the frequency of 

harm

There seems to be an organized effort in the BOP by some 

inmates to determine whether other inmates have/are cooperating. We have received an uptick in former clients 

wanting information to prove they didn’t cooperate.

General comments about the 

sources to identify cooperator; procedures for protecting defendants

There were direct threats to me and my family that the 

Marshall addressed. If there are closed sentencing hearing it 

is presumed that it is to discuss cooperation. I don’t mention the [cooperation] agreement on the record or close a 

sentencing hearing unless specifically requested by the parties. Attorneys regularly [practicing] before me understand 

this and it works well. There are always reasons for a variance regardless of cooperation. Newer attorneys want to 

discuss the cooperation agreement in detail and we have to 

close the hearing. It is no secret after that.

Nothing to report There were none in 2013 or 2014

Takes issue with the survey; general 

comment about the frequency of 

harm; comments about refusal out 

of fear

These are not all-inclusive. Exact numbers can’t be known.

The “no snitching” culture is strong in [redacted]. We have 

not kept statistics on this, but many witnesses and defendants fear to cooperate without identifying their reasons.

Takes issue with the survey; comments about refusal out of fearthese cases are difficult to follow. The clients stop talking to 

us when they get really scared

General comments about the 

sources to identify cooperator; general comment about harm in prison/prison culture

They have access to PACER at the prisons and so prisoners 

and/or guards go through the dockets and tell people what 

the charges were and what the sentences were. This leads to 

being able to figure out if they cooperated.

Takes issue with the survey This entire survey is a waste of time.

General comment about the frequency of harm; comments about 

refusal out of fear; procedures for 

protecting witnesses; procedures for 

protecting defendants

This is [redacted] and many defendants have links to 

DTOs. As such, defendants often have to balance the possibility of threats against the possibility of reduced sentences.

Indeed, AUSAs in our district believed that the perceived or 

potential of threat or harm (without any actual threat made 

or harm inflicted) deters many defendants from cooperat-
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 135

Categories Open-Ended Comments

ing and/or inhibits them from following through with the 

cooperation addendum. In addition, we were involved with 

several incidents in 2014 in which cooperators had to be 

relocated or placed in WITSEC due to threats. Finally, we 

also would note that, several years ago, our district court 

developed a docketing system, in consultation with USAO 

and FPD, to endeavor to better protect cooperators entering pleas. Called the Master Sealed Event calendar, it creates 

a docket skip early in every case, and then going forward a 

separate cooperation addendum gets appended, without a 

docket skip, to a special sealed calendar.

Policy comments; general comment 

about harm in prison/prison culture; general comments about the 

sources to identify cooperator; general comment about the frequency 

of harm

This is not a problem the judiciary can solve by sealing 

court records because inmates are required to “prove” they 

have not cooperated by producing their own paperwork. If 

the inmate has cooperated, which is often the case, he simply has no choice but to check himself into the Segregated 

Housing Unit because he knows the other inmates will access PACER and learn that he has cooperated. I have even 

had requests from defendants and attorneys to seal a defendant’s entire court file so no member of the public could 

access it. Even then, however, the sealing of court documents related to sentencing raises a red flag as to whether a 

particular defendant has cooperated. This is a serious problem that needs to be promptly addressed by the DOJ. Defendants do not understand when they enter a plea and 

cooperation agreement that they are likely agreeing to serve 

their sentence in solitary confinement. Many of these inmates serve years in the SHU and if they are transferred to 

another institution the process simply starts over again and 

they enter the SHU for their own protection at the new 

institution. Although this is a DOJ/BOP problem, the judiciary has an interest in it because judges accept these pleas 

and they sentence defendants pursuant to the pleas. A sentence served in the SHU is a very different sentence than 

one served in general population. There is no programming. Any inmate serving a lengthy sentence in the SHU 

stands little if any chance at rehabilitation. The judiciary 

should insist the DOJ address this increasing problem.

Takes issue with the survey This is useless when the relative of a defendant was murdered.

General comment about the frequency of harm; Takes issue with 

the survey

This issue is raised continually by defense counsel but I have 

no evidence of actual harm resulting. However, I lose track of 

cases after sentencing, so I am not the best person to ask.

Details of a specific incident This response only represents one case.
136 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories Open-Ended Comments

General comment about the frequency of harm; general comment 

about harm in prison/prison culture; general comments about the 

sources to identify cooperator

Threats against actual or perceived cooperators are very 

common. There is hardly a drug case where the ones caught 

with the drugs (or their families) are not threatened by 

leaders of the drug trafficking organizations. Others in the 

jail suspect cooperators when they get pulled from the facility and brought for a debrief. The government often discloses to codefendants the cooperation of one in order to 

coerce guilty pleas. I have never had a case where cooperation was learned from the filing of any document or something said in the courtroom. A person’s cooperation is usually discovered or suspected long before the govt files a 

5K1.1 or Rule 35 motion.

General comments about the 

sources to identify cooperator

Threats have been made after release of [discovery] (particularly Jencks).

General comment about the frequency of harm; general comment 

about harm in prison/prison culture; details of a specific incident; 

procedures for protecting defendants; procedures for protecting witnesses

Threats lower because our caseload has dropped since US 

Atty doesn’t bring many cases here (he prefers [redacted] 

with lesser penalties). At BOP, prisoners often demand to 

see PSR or dkt sheet to alert them to prior cooperation. It’s 

dangerous to give up documents and dangerous not to.

One of my trials was against killers of a witness. Cooperators often face disapproving and threatening family and 

former friends when they get up on the stand. It causes 

some to be very cautious and not especially good witnesses.

Family estrangement is a strong motivator to keep silent. A 

number of my defendants or cooperators are in WitSec 

and/or protective BOP custody.

General comment about the frequency of harm; general comment 

about harm in prison/prison culture; procedures for protecting defendants; general comments about 

the sources to identify cooperator

Threats of harm and harm to inmates are not limited to 

cooperators. Sex offenders and clients who victimize children receive some of the worst threats and injuries. It is 

very common for inmates to request sentencing documents 

to prove they are not cooperators or sex offenders. When 

an inmate arrives on a housing unit in a BOP facility they 

are required to prove they are not a snitch or a sex offender.

If they do not or cannot prove they have “clean paper” they 

have to request protective custody. Many of these clients 

end up serving their sentences in the most restrictive conditions with no access to treatment or other programs. They 

live in fear even in protective custody. The prisons are so 

understaffed that prison [authorities] rely on inmates to 

keep order. This system of social stratification is therefore 

tolerated if not condoned. While PACER and CM/ECF 

have conferred great benefits they also have made life much 

more difficult for many inmates. Many inmates have someone on the outside with access to PACER to verify the status of other inmates. It is not hard to spot a snitch or a sex 

offender if you have access to PACER.
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 137

Categories Open-Ended Comments

General comment about the frequency of harmThreats of harm are often recited to me from defendants 

during sentencing but rarely do I have any method of verifying their reliability. I do not doubt, however, that retribution for cooperation is a serious concern for many defendants faced with the Hobson’s choice of cooperating or not 

receiving the most favorable plea agreement or the 5K or 

Rule 35 motion essential for avoiding the minimum mandatory sentence. 

General comment about the frequency of harm; general comments 

about the sources to identify cooperator; general comment about 

harm in prison/prison culture; procedures for protecting defendants

Threats of harm to cooperators are routine in our principal 

pretrial detention facility and at various BOP [institutions].

Cooperators are sometimes identified through discovery 

documents when the case goes to trial (or very close to trial). We have reports of defendants (whether they cooperated or not) being told to provide sentencing and/or plea 

transcripts to prove to others at a BOP facility that they did 

not cooperate. Cooperators sometimes also are identified 

(or believed to be identified) through J&C’s that contain a 

sentence not seeming consistent with the charges. We limit 

access to some documents sent to the BOP by requiring 

that they be viewed in the Warden’s Office (or some other 

restricted space). 

General comment about the frequency of harm; procedures for 

protecting defendants

Threats of harm usually made to cooperators while they are 

in pretrial detention with co-defendants. A request is then 

made to transfer to another detention center or to a different area of the present detention center. These requests are 

almost always granted. 

General comment about the frequency of harm; general comments

about the sources to identify cooperator

Threats seem to occur more often when the Govt. lets codefendants know that a cooperator will testify at trial. At 

sentencing, threats against cooperators [are] used to 

strengthen the Govt’s 5K1 motion on behalf of the cooperator.

General comment about the frequency of harmThreats that I am aware of were addressed either to me or 

to the prosecutor in a given case. I am unaware of any witness that has been threatened, and I have not received any 

reports from the Bureau of Prisons of harm done to a cooperating defendant/inmate.

General comment about the frequency of harmThreats to co-defendants, witnesses and victims have occurred in assault, rape, child sexual abuse and drug conspiracy cases. Threats of harm are a particular problem in 

[redacted] cases.

General comment about the frequency of harm; policy commentsthreats to cooperating co-defendants are reported fairly 

frequently but I do not know if they are real threats or just 

talk. It often appears to be just talk. It is hard to solve the 

problem, because the identity of the cooperating codefendant or witness usually cannot be kept from the defendant, who is usually the perceived source of the threat.

General comment about the frequency of harmThreats to victims, witnesses and cooperating defendants 

has been increasing each year.

Nothing to report to my knowledge [there] have been no threats
138 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories Open-Ended Comments

Details of a specific incident; general comments about the sources to 

identify cooperator

Two co-defendants were beaten in pre-trial detention when 

discovery/Jencks statements were given to defendants in jail 

and they learned of the co-defendants’ cooperation. / An 

informant was killed when a gang learned he was informing 

to law enforcement.

Details of a specific incident; procedures for protecting defendantsTwo multi-defendant [redacted] cases in parallel prosecutions in which each had one or more cooperators and one 

in each case had veiled or express threats of violence or 

physical harm to the [cooperating] defendant or his family 

members which resulted in permission for each of the 

threatened families to relocate to another state pending 

completion of the case. The case ultimately ended with 

each/all of the defendants entering pleas of guilty and the 

last of them was sentenced [redacted].

General comment about the frequency of harmUncertain of number, but there are a few cases that have 

been verbally threatened.

Procedures for protecting defendantsUsually the government and defense counsel have an 

agreed upon approach to these matters. 

General comment about the frequency of harm; procedures for 

protecting defendants; general 

comment about harm in prison/prison culture; comments about 

refusal out of fear

Very few defendants ever tell me about threats or harm 

once they are sentenced. I have had a [few] (maybe 3-5) 

letters from prisons saying they are being threatened. In 

those situations we tell the AUSA or probation. Roughly 

half of the clients who could cooperate choose not to. A 

portion of these are concerned about their [safety].

Takes issue with the survey Very hard to predict on a case [by] case basis.

General comment about the frequency of harm; general comment 

about harm in prison/prison culture

Virtually every defendant that we represent who ends up in 

BOP custody calls us to request proof that the defendant 

did not cooperate. Each inmate tells the same story -- he is 

confronted shortly after arrival at a BOP facility by an inmate or inmates saying that he has x number of days to 

prove he is not a cooperator or he will be beaten. Defendants routinely ask us to do things we cannot do -- i.e., provide a fake docket entry, fake statement of reasons for sentence, or to buy transcripts revealing the lack of cooperation.

Procedures for protecting defendants; policy comments; general 

comment about harm in prison/prison culture

We are not allowed to provide copies of discovery and pre 

sentence reports to defendants detained due to potential 

threats of harm. However, this prohibition limits the defendant’s ability to thoroughly review the evidence against 

them. / Often, once the Defendant has been sentenced I 

have no further contact so I may not know if cooperation 

has [led] to threats of harm once in BOP custody.

Details of a specific incident We can only recall one other case approximately 6 years ago 

where a cooperator was assaulted due to his cooperation 

while in pretrial detention.
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 139

Categories Open-Ended Comments

General comment about the frequency of harm; general comment 

about harm in prison/prison culture; general comments about the 

sources to identify cooperator

We constantly hear from clients about their desire to have 

documents to use in BOP to prove they are not cooperating. That number is in the hundreds. Media coverage of 

sentencings on TV leads to threats and violence against our

clients. They are [savvy] enough to know that a sentence is 

too low following a guilty plea without cooperation. 

Takes issue with the survey; nothing 

to report

We do not track this information so I cannot answer these 

questions with a specific number so I had to put 0.

General comment about the frequency of harm; general comment 

about harm in prison/prison culture; general comments about the 

sources to identify cooperator

We do not track this information, so my numbers understate the occurrence. There has been a large increase in 

numbers of defendants calling or writing from BOP asking 

for their docket sheet. It is clear that most of the time it is 

because they are being pressured to produce this info to 

other prisoners. In one instance, another prisoner could be 

heard in the background telling my client what to ask for. / 

However, we don’t track our defendants once they get to 

BOP, so we would not normally receive information about 

threats within BOP. Defendants who come back to us on 

Supervised Release Violations after release relate that this 

practice of checking docket sheets inside BOP is very common.

General comment about the frequency of harm; procedures for 

protecting witnesses

We experience this difficulty all the time, and constantly 

spend funds moving witnesses.

Details of a specific incident; procedures for protecting defendantsWe found two cases that fit the criteria of the [survey]. The 

first case is outlined above. Basically, the defendant was on 

bond and while he was on bond, he was working as a confidential informant. While on bond, he reported receiving 

death threats and was relocated for a time. He was in protective custody by A.T.F. So while he was on pretrial release 

we know he received death threats. We found out that after 

the defendant was on supervision by the probation office he 

was shot to death at a local bar. The second case involved a 

defendant reported being intimidated but not threatened.

He reported a truck would drive by his house and park 

there and watch him. He noted several individuals also approached him and asked him questions about his family.

Procedures for protecting defendants; general comments about the 

sources to identify cooperator; policy comments

We generally seal plea agreements with cooperation provisions, but it is an unsatisfactory approach. Inmates have 

become sophisticated in reading PACER, and many understand that a “sealed event” around the time of the plea is a 

strong indicator that the defendant is cooperating. This 

issue is of great concern to us, and we welcome the attention that is being paid to it.
140 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories Open-Ended Comments

General comment about the frequency of harm; details of a specific 

incident; general comment about 

harm in prison/prison culture

We have a large number of gun and drug cases that arise in 

the inner cities and often with gang involvement. It is very 

common for witnesses in these communities to experience 

threats and intimidation. In several state prosecutions witnesses have been harmed and in some cases murdered. We 

have not had any witnesses murdered but it is not uncommon for a [witness] to report that fellow gang members 

have made threatening remarks to them. In one of the cases 

referenced earlier a witness was confronted at the door to 

her house by a man with a gun threatening her and her son 

because her son was a witness to a shooting and warning 

not to talk to the authorities. Threats and assaults in jail on 

cooperating defendants or those thought to be cooperating 

is not uncommon. 

General comment about the frequency of harm; general comment 

about harm in prison/prison culture; general comments about the 

sources to identify cooperator; procedures for protecting defendants; 

procedures for protecting witnesses; 

details of a specific incident

We have a lot of anecdotal evidence from defense counsel 

that defendants are being confronted in BOP facilities based 

on cooperation (documents from PACER like 5K or Rule 

35 motions, or even cooperation paragraphs in plea agreements), however, counsel have been reluctant to give us 

specifics about those threats. Many of our cases start out 

with the state, and defendants use documents from the state 

case, like complaints or search warrants, to find out who is 

cooperating and retaliate against them. Additional comments provided over phone: Respondent noted that his 

district sees a lot of harm to defendants and witnesses, but 

court documents, at least PACER documents, are rarely the 

source. Defenders know this to be an issue as well, and they 

were responding to the survey in the same way. Respondent 

then provided a brief description of how criminal cases 

work in his district. Even in purely federal cases, which he 

noted are quite rare for them, the prosecution is required 

early on to provide statements and plea agreements as part 

of discovery (within two weeks of the arraignment, by local 

rule). So these documents (5K, Rule 35, etc.) are given to 

the defense as part of discovery. The documents are sometimes the source of the information, but are RARELY obtained through PACER. Even if the name of the cooperator 

or witness is not included, the defendant often can figure 

out the name of the person based on the information (e.g., 

the sale of drugs on a specific day or at a specific place tells 

them who the buyer was). Respondent then relayed more 

information about the case he mentioned in his email contact. A multi-conviction drug dealer was under state investigation again. A search warrant was left as part of the investigation, so even before discovery, and from that information he was able to obtain the name of the cooperator, 

who he later lured onto the railroad tracks and shot. This is 

now a federal case. The only solution to preventing defendants from getting this kind of information is to seek a protective order, which the prosecutors almost never do be-
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 141

Categories Open-Ended Comments

cause they are difficult to obtain. The district does try to 

protect cooperation information by entering 5K and Rule 

35 information orally during a sentencing hearing (after 

notifying the court via email that such information will be 

entered), so there is no PACER docket entry for this. However, if someone went to the trouble of paying to obtain the 

transcript, they could learn it from there.

Procedures for protecting defendantsWe have a procedure in place in the [redacted] to protect 

cooperating defendants. We have created a master sealed 

event in all criminal cases except immigration cases. This is 

where the attorneys can have docketed any matters relating 

to cooperation. It seems to work well.

General comments about the 

sources to identify cooperator

We have been informed of assumptions by outside individuals that anything sealed or any missing ECF docket numbers covers a sealed document that relates to cooperation.

General comment about the frequency of harm; general comments 

about the sources to identify cooperator; policy comments

We have experienced a distinct uptick in threatened and 

actual violence to witnesses and cooperator/targets in the 

last ten years. Drug traffickers are using their networks as 

well as [following] docket entries for sealed filings, transfer 

motions and waivers of pretrial motions. We believe a more 

secure system for filing sensitive pleading should be developed. There is also a “paralegal” who monitors some of the 

more significant drug cases. This [paralegal] is seen speaking with the defendants as well as the defense lawyers. Defense counsel do not welcome the input of the paralegal.

Details of a specific incident; general comments about the sources to 

identify cooperator; general comment about harm in prison/prison 

culture

We have had a “certified complex” drug conspiracy case 

where a codefendant was afraid for his life for cooperating 

with agents. This case has not been sentenced yet. There 

was no plea agreement or 5K filed (yet), but there was a 

debrief with this codefendant who implicated other codefendants. This codefendant was assaulted for no reason 

while in custody pending sentence for the instant case and 

believes the leader/organizer of this conspiracy ordered the 

assault. / / In the past three years, we have reviewed about 3 

PSRs where the material witnesses in alien smuggling cases 

were threatened harm if they talked to agents concerning 

the defendant. Names of material witnesses are disclosed in 

PSR’s with their statement regarding the defendant and the 

instant offense. It is unknown if the defendant actually carried out the threat of harm as most or all of these material 

witnesses in these types of cases are deported before the 

defendant is sentenced. No additional information about 

these cases is known. / 

General comment about the frequency of harm; general comment 

about harm in prison/prison culture; general comments about the 

sources to identify cooperator

We have had multiple reports that defendants in BOP custody are routinely asked to “show papers,” meaning J&C, 

PSR, transcripts of plea and sentencing hearings, etc., and 

that if they could not or did not they were targeted for violence. In the case of at least one facility, this was confirmed 

by a Correctional Officer. 
142 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories Open-Ended Comments

General comment about the frequency of harmWe have other cases where the defendant/offender has indicated they were threatened by others do to the cooperation 

but no evidence of the validity of the threat or how others 

became aware of his cooperation.

Nothing to report We know of no harm or threats of harm in 2013 or 2014.

General comment about the frequency of harm; comments about 

refusal out of fear

We know that sometimes witnesses and cooperators refuse 

to cooperate due to threats or perceived threats, but that 

information is not always communicated to us. Also, the 

threats of harm or harm may not be the sole reason to refuse the cooperation.

General comment about the frequency of harm; procedures for 

protecting defendants

We prosecute a large number of cases in this district that 

depend on the cooperation of defendants and witnesses 

who have reason to fear retaliation or have been actually 

threatened. We do not track this information; therefore the 

numbers above are not reliable. There are merely a guess, 

but it is a substantial number each year. We are [redacted] 

and prosecute a large number of cartel and gang cases. This 

is a factor in every case. And, in almost every case, the fear 

of retaliation or the actual threats are made against cooperators or family members in [redacted], complicating matters substantially more than where the cooperators and/or 

their family members are entirely [redacted].

General comment about the frequency of harm; general comments 

about the sources to identify cooperator; general comment about 

harm in prison/prison culture

We receive frequent requests for sentencing transcripts 

from incarcerated defendants who have no appeal or habeas pending. These requests appear to be from defendants 

who are being pressured/threatened to demonstrate to other inmates that they did not cooperate with the government. Although I have no information of actual threats, I 

have a strong impression that this is a major problem for 

incarcerated inmates, whether or not they actually cooperated.

General comment about the frequency of harm; procedures for 

protecting defendants

We take extra precaution to try to prevent harm but it is 

sometimes inevitable. 

Takes issue with the survey; general 

comment about harm in prison/prison culture; general comment 

about the frequency of harm; general comments about the sources to 

identify cooperator

You are asking the wrong person when you ask my office.

We represent the LEAD defendant who is usually the person being snitched on, not the person doing the snitching.

That said, we do regularly receive requests from defendants 

in the BOP for PSRs to prove they did not cooperate. We 

also occasionally receive requests to doctor documents to 

show cooperators did not cooperate.
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 143

Categories Open-Ended Comments

Procedures for protecting defendants; general comment about harm 

in prison/prison culture; general 

comments about the sources to 

identify cooperator; policy comments; general comment about the 

frequency of harm

We used to have mandatory plea agreement supplements 

that were sealed and filed in every case in an attempt to 

make it more difficult to tell which defendants were cooperating. Defense counsel reported that this was putting all 

defendants in jeopardy (including the people who did not 

cooperate) because the sealed docket entry suggested to 

fellow inmates that the defendant had cooperated. Accordingly, we stopped the practice of mandatory plea agreement 

supplements. Presently, motions for downward departure 

and cooperation agreements are automatically sealed documents. The docket entries are not visible to the public, but 

the docket will reflect a skipped number, which we are told 

is a signal to those who might wish to harm a cooperating 

defendant. Sealed cooperation-related documents are 

sealed for the duration of a defendant’s term of incarceration. Counsel may move to seal things like sentencing 

memos which contain references to cooperation. On an 

adequate showing, those motions to seal are routinely 

granted. Our court has spent significant amount of time 

discussing this issue, and we have decided to await national 

guidance on the best way to balance the important interests 

at stake.

General comment about the frequency of harmWhen defendants request reductions of their sentences under Rule 35, they and their lawyers generally contend that 

the defendants have been threatened, but I have no documented cases of such threats.

General comment about the frequency of harm; procedures for 

protecting defendants

While defendants at times ask for entire plea agreements to 

be sealed or not even docketed because of a perceived 

threat, I have never had any defendant or defense counsel 

or government attorney provide any details to support the 

perception.

General comment about the frequency of harm; details of a specific 

incident; general comments about 

the sources to identify cooperator; 

general comment about harm in 

prison/prison culture

While I don’t have additional information about actual 

harm or actual threats of harm, I am frequently reminded 

of the dangers for offenders of being associated with the 

Government. In one recent large, multi-defendant heroin 

distribution case in which some defendants had gang affiliations, virtually every defendant [redacted] requested a 

copy of the transcript of his sentencing. This was not done 

for appeal purposes - because in each case the appeal period 

had run when the request was made. My court reporter told 

me that, in several cases, she was advised by the person requesting (and paying for) the transcript that the transcript 

was needed so that the defendant could show to other inmates that he was not a “snitch.”
144 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories Open-Ended Comments

General comment about the frequency of harm; Takes issue with 

the survey

While not many AUSAs in the district advised that they 

experienced defendants or witnesses experiencing harm or 

threats in the last three years, the AUSA who serves as the 

district’s Professional Responsibility Officer (PRO) and 

Appellate Chief advised that he has heard of plenty of instances surrounding these issues in his capacity as PRO and 

Appellate Chief. Therefore, we submit that even though 

AUSAs may not be quantifying these situations in their 

daily casework, the issues do arise and the PRO and/or appellate division may be another good source for information. / / Note, that we entered 0 to the questions above 

because the approximate numbers, if any, are unknown.

General comment about the frequency of harmWhile we have had a few [defendants] over the past three 

years express fears for their safety after cooperating with the 

government, these fears were based on the nature of the 

cooperation and no direct or indirect threats were made.

General comment about the frequency of harm; general comments 

about the sources to identify cooperator; comments about refusal out 

of fear

Within the District, there is a general perception that cooperators will be harmed, even if there is no specific credible 

threat of harm known. Even use of the safety valve provision is generally rejected by defendants in narcotics cases 

given their understanding that said provision could lead to 

the label of cooperator and the perceived risks that entails.

Many defendants do not even consider cooperation or even 

the safety valve as a result. 

Policy comments; general comments about the sources to identify 

cooperator; procedures for protecting defendants

Additional comments provided over email: If the survey is 

like other FJC surveys, I expect there will be opportunity for 

open-ended comments. That will be important to me. I 

have very strong feelings about what the Judiciary should 

and should not be willing to do in this arena. We are obviously all concerned about threats, intimidation and actual 

harm inflicted on a defendant who chooses to cooperate.

We should get real, hard data on how extensive the problem is. Right now, I hear lots of anecdotes, but have very 

little real, hard information. This will be a good first step.

But even if the survey develops hard data of a genuine and 

significant problem, I think the Judiciary must be very cautious about compromising the transparency and accuracy 

of Court records to address the problem. I don’t have any 

problem with Courts doing what we have always done:

namely, make case specific decision on whether and what to 

file under seal. But the recent proposals I’ve heard go way 

beyond that and would, if adopted, involve scrubbing the 

docket entirely of all references to the filing of Rule 35 or 

5K motions (not just sealing content in appropriate cases), 

and in some instances even filing a public version of a plea 

agreement that appears to be complete but really isn’t because there is a private, undisclosed rider that covers cooperation and substantial assistance.
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 145

Categories Open-Ended Comments

In my view, adoption of proposals like these last two go way 

beyond sealing records in appropriate cases, and actually 

strike at the core of the transparency and accountability 

that is so essential to the integrity and operation of the 

Court. Court records should, in my view, fairly reflect what 

actually happened in a case. If there was a Rule 35 or 5K 

departure motion filed, the record needs to reflect that, 

even if the content of the motions is sealed for good cause.

Otherwise, the Court is publishing a docket that distorts the 

reality of what occurred in a case. Similarly, if there is a Plea 

Agreement with a cooperation provision, and that is actually part of the plea deal, the record should not falsely suggest 

that there is Plea Agreement without such a cooperation 

provision. The proposal I’ve heard to file a public version of 

a Plea Agreement that does not include the cooperation 

provision, when everyone involved realizes the real deal 

actually does include cooperation, would in my view put 

the Judiciary in the position of creating a false and misleading record of what is actually occurring. And obviously I 

don’t think the Judiciary should countenance that sort of 

thing.

Making individualized decisions to seal some or all of the 

content of a document is perfectly proper and wellestablished judicial practice in my view. It does result in 

some compromise of the normal, presumptive right of public access to Court records. But the compromise is appropriate when a judicial officer determines there is good cause 

for the sealed filing. But the proposals that go beyond this, 

and that would distort the judicial record of what is actually 

happening in a case are totally different in my view. At least 

in my District, I’m hearing the US Attorney’s Office--often 

with support from the Defender Service--push for the more 

extreme record scrubbing that would, in my view distort 

the reality of what is happening in a case. I understand and 

applaud the desire to protect people who choose to cooperate. But I don’t think that protection can or should come at 

the expense of the integrity of the Court record.

Details of a specific incident; general comments about the sources to 

identify cooperator; procedures for 

protecting defendants; Procedures 

for protecting witnesses; Takes issue 

with the survey

Additional comments provided over email: I have the following information to report regarding threats or harm to 

offenders due to their cooperation:

1) [redacted] - was prosecuted for threatening a material 

witness [redacted]- see below.

2) [redacted] - was threatened by [redacted] regarding her 

testimony against [redacted]. [redacted] threatened with 

physical harm to herself and her family. No actual

harm was done. [redacted] was on pretrial release at the 

time of the threat. No information to indicate she requested 

protective custody or that she received same. No information to indicate that court documents were used to identify the defendant as a cooperator.
146 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories Open-Ended Comments

3) [redacted] is being prosecuted for witness tampering. He 

made a series of phone calls to people to attempt to dissuade them from testifying in the sentencing of [redacted]. 

No information to indicate there were actual threats made. 

Defendant was in custody for TSR revocation at the time. 

Witnesses were in the community and no information is 

available about the witnesses requesting protection. No 

threat of physical or financial harm was reported and none 

actually occurred. Discovery material (statements) was disseminated amongst several people in this case.

4) [redacted] has received various threats of physical harm 

to him and his family due to his cooperation against other 

defendants. Some co-defendants distributed discovery material which included statements provided by [redacted]. 

[redacted] was on bond at the time of the treats and it has 

continued to his time on probation. No harm has actually 

occurred to date.

5) [redacted] is a [redacted] who cooperated with the Government against other [redacted]. He has been detained 

and awaiting sentencing since [redacted]. He is trying to 

enter the BOP Witness Security Program. We have no specific threat information, but there is a sincere concern for 

his safety.

Please let me know if you have any questions or require 

additional information.

I took the request to mean that we had to compile one response for the entire district so I did not complete the form 

itself.

Takes issue with the survey; general 

comment about the frequency of 

harm; details of a specific incident; 

general comment about harm in 

prison/prison culture; procedures 

for protecting defendants; general 

comments about the sources to 

identify cooperator

Additional comments provided over email: I have been 

attempting to complete the survey “Cooperators – Federal 

defenders and CJA Panel representatives” I am [redacted]. 

[redacted]. I truly appreciate your efforts in gathering information useful to the courts for this very real problem. I 

have attempted to complete the survey as constructed 

which has a number difficulties in getting useful information for the courts. I understand researchers like check 

box surveys because they can be more easily “scored” than 

interviews or open ended questions. However the issues are 

much more complex than what will be revealed by the 

structure of the questions asked. Despite that I dutifully 

went through the series of questions but got an error message “you cannot continue until you enter a valid number.” 

This came with the following series of questions: 

1. “In the past three years, how many defendants, because 

of actual or threatened harm, requested case information 

(CM/ECF docket, pre-sentence report, etc.) to prove they 

were not a cooperator?” 

2. “In the past three years, how many defendants, because 

of actual or threatened harm, requested all or part of their 

CM/ECF docket be sealed?” 
Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016 147

Categories Open-Ended Comments

3. “In the past three years, how many defendants withdrew 

offers of cooperation because of actual or threatened 

harm?”

The answer to #1 — There was a large space to answer (as 

there was in the other two) so I thought I could type in an 

explanation. My answer was: “This happens so routinely I 

cannot give a number. Most defendants are shaken down 

for case information upon arrival at BOP institution. This 

is 100% of defendants who are assigned to a USP and some 

that go to a medium.” This has been the case for nearly my 

entire career. I do not have a number and would have to 

pull case files to get a number. The form wants a number. I 

put it at 75%. It would not take 75% This error warning (as 

the other two error warnings) did not come until I had 

completed all three of the questions. 

The answer to #2 was “None that I can recall. I have suggested this and been told it will not help and will actually 

raise a red flag and cause everyone to believe defendant was 

cooperator if items are sealed.” The form wants a number 

so I put “0” (i.e. zero.) Form wouldn’t take it.

The answer to #3 was “This averages about 30%.” This percentage is the defendants who are, no matter what, going to 

a USP versus a medium or lower. Form would not take 

answer or 30%.

The last questions about the number of defendants/or witnesses harmed or threatened due to perceived or actual 

cooperation with the government higher or lower in 2014 

vs 2013. I would answer lower because I have been told by 

defendants that they have learned that it does not get them 

anywhere and actually can make it worse if they complain.

As for additional information (an open ended question) I 

can state the following:

In addition to criminal defense work I do civil rights cases 

and FTCA cases. I frequently receive requests from inmates 

to represent them in cases where they have been seriously 

assaulted (usually with homemade knives) by fellow inmates. Due to the technical legal difficulties with §1983 

cases and FTCA cases, and the expense and time necessary 

to take on such a case, I and other lawyers routinely turn 

down these requests for representation. I am currently in 

[redacted] on one such case that I did take regarding an 

individual who was assaulted so badly (because he was believed to be a snitch) that he had to have a kidney surgically 

removed, had heart repair surgery and is missing part of a 

lung. [redacted] because even without discovery the courts 

have so far held that “discretionary function” exception 

bars the suit. Some institutions are better run than others 

and can protect prisoners better than others. The perpetrators of this vicious assault received very minor sentences 

attached to their current sentences. There is no deterrence 
148 Survey of Harm to Cooperators: Final Report • Federal Judicial Center • 2016

Categories Open-Ended Comments

of perpetrators of assaults nor any real threat of any ramifications for prison officials who fail to adequately protect 

prisoners at risk. 

As for district judges and protecting cooperators and others 

the situation is this: Every plea agreement in [redacted] for 

years has the following three required paragraphs that must 

be agreed to by the defendant:

[redacted] 

These paragraphs are not in every district. Ironically the 

“debrief” required is often not bothered with or is cursory 

and does not provide any new information. However the 

paragraphs create obvious problems for the defendant 

when incarcerated. 

I hope this helps with your research. I hope that interviews 

of CJA district representatives, and FPDs and AFPDs are 

being contemplated in the future. In addition to criminal 

defense counsel who have represented defendants and witnesses who have been assaulted, civil rights attorneys who 

have represented similar victims are being contemplated.

General comment about the frequency of harm; general comment 

about harm in prison/prison culture; procedures for protecting defendants; policy comments; general 

comments about the sources to 

identify cooperators; details of a 

specific incident

Additional comments provided over email: Some weeks ago 

I returned your committee’s survey on threats or harm to 

witnesses. At the time, I was personally familiar with only 

one or two cases. By coincidence the issue came up in connection with a request to unseal plea agreements that would 

indicate who had cooperated. The United States Attorney 

[redacted] presented three witnesses, with national and 

local experience, who effectively described the range of 

problems that occur when a cooperating witness is identified. The witnesses gave numerous examples of retaliation 

against cooperating witnesses, those merely suspected of 

cooperating, and even those who spoke to prison officials to 

give exculpatory information about a suspect. [Redacted]

Details of a specific incident; general comment about harm in prison/prison culture[Case transcript provided over email]
The Federal Judicial Center 

Board 

The Chief Justice of the United States, Chair 

Judge Catherine C. Blake, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland 

Judge Curtis L. Collier, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee

Magistrate Judge Jonathan W. Feldman, U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York

Judge Kent A. Jordan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 

Judge Michael J. Melloy, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 

Judge Kimberly J. Mueller, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California

Chief Judge C. Ray Mullins, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia 

James C. Duff, Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Director 

Judge Jeremy D. Fogel 

Deputy Director 

John S. Cooke 

About the Federal Judicial Center 

The Federal Judicial Center is the research and education agency of the federal judicial system. It 

was established by Congress in 1967 (28 U.S.C. §§ 620–629), on the recommendation of the 

Judicial Conference of the United States. 

By statute, the Chief Justice of the United States chairs the Center’s Board, which also includes 

the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and seven judges elected by the 

Judicial Conference. 

The organization of the Center reflects its primary statutory mandates. The Education Division plans and produces education and training for judges and court staff, including in-person 

programs, video programs, publications, curriculum packages for in-district training, and Webbased programs and resources. The Research Division examines and evaluates current and 

alternative federal court practices and policies. This research assists Judicial Conference committees, who request most Center research, in developing policy recommendations. The Center’s 

research also contributes substantially to its educational programs. The Federal Judicial History 

Office helps courts and others study and preserve federal judicial history. The International 

Judicial Relations Office provides information to judicial and legal officials from foreign countries 

and informs federal judicial personnel of developments in international law and other court 

systems that may affect their work. Two units of the Director’s Office—the Information Technology Office and the Editorial & Information Services Office—support Center missions through 

technology, editorial and design assistance, and organization and dissemination of Center 

resources.