We are not great fans of informants and snitches. Criminal defense lawyers have represented far too many people who have been subjected to, and in many cases received, double-digit sentences based on lying snitch testimony and little or nothing else.

Since 1987, when the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines went into effect, one of the few ways a defendant can get a sentence reduction from the draconian federal drug penalties is to provide information that assists the government in its investigation or prosecution of someone else.

We consider the testimony of these people to be "purchased testimony," testimony that is purchased by the Government with promises of leniency or freedom. Think about it -- freedom is a far more precious commodity than money.

Now to the point. Jailed Informant Wants Protection tells the story of an informant who provided key testimony in the trial of Cali drug operatives who were charged with killing a crusading journalist. The informant is accusing the Government of not living up to its promise to protect him because several of his family members later were killed in a bloody retaliation in Colombia.

"John Harold Mena said five family members, including his 77-year-old father, have been killed since he agreed to cooperate with federal prosecutors in the 1992 slaying of Manuel de Dios Unanue."

The Government apparently is not disputing this. "U.S. authorities have confirmed Mena's family is under siege, and say they are investigating his latest claims. They believe [the cartel member who ordered the hit on the journalist and was captured in Colombia in 1999] may have ordered retaliation from jail."

Now Mena was no minor player in the killing of the journalist. He admitted in his plea that he was one of the hit men. And he chose to be an informant, knowing the risks of possible retaliation. But he didn't get a walk for his testimony. He got 18 years and he's serving the sentence. With a sentence that long, you don't go to a Club Fed. You are behind the walls, and that is hard time.

Mena has asked for a court-appointed lawyer to represent him in his claim against the Government. Today's New York Times says the Judge granted this request, and will likely schedule a hearing soon. As much as we don't like snitches, we support his right to a full and fair hearing. Why? If the Government is going to turn people into informants and promise them protection, it ought not abandon the person after obtaining the favorable testimony it bargained for.

Mena alleges that in exchange for his testimony, prosecutors promised him that the Drug Enforcement Administration would bring his family to the United States. "He claimed he gave the government names of family members who were at risk, but the DEA refused to protect them because agents 'no longer needed my assistance.' "

There has been no comment on his allegations by the DEA.

While this case involved a drug-related murder, the vast majority of cases involve just drugs. Without the draconian mandatory minimum penalties for drug offenses, for which there is no, defendants wouldn't have to choose between going to trial and risking a life sentence and pleading guilty, cooperating and receiving a lesser sentence.

Perhaps if the risks of cooperation become more publicized, and as defendants come to realize their "snitch jacket" follows them into prison making their time there much more dangerous and unpleasant, they will choose to "just say no" when the feds come calling.

We lawyers like to think that one day, "Nobody Talks, Everybody Walks" will be a reality. It often was in the old, pre-guideline days.