Everytime a steroid source is busted, there is considerable internet buzz about whether the source will “rat out” anyone. And everyone involved in the underground steroid black market wants to know whether their colleagues, their customers, or their sources will turn their name(s) over to federal/state investigators. Internet entrepreneurs have realized the demand for this type of information, much to the chagrin of law enforcement, with websites like Who’s A Rat? (”Web site that rats out informants worries Dallas officials,” March 29).

The site seeks to expose people who “rat on a business associates, friends, or family members just to save themselves,” said Chris Brown, whosarat.com spokesman…

The site has survived because of free speech protections, he said. “The bottom line is we provide the forum. The members post…”

Currently, anyone can go to Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) and download information about their favorite busted steroid source, past and present, including the criminal complaint, the indictment, and the plea agreement. I think this sort of transparency in our criminal justice system is great.

Unfortunately, websites like WhosaRat.com and RateMyCop.com have raised concerns among law enforcement that may ultimately restrict the public’s access to court records. This is a worthy debate in and of itself. But I want to focus on another aspect the process - plea agreements - and why these do not necessarily make the defendant a “rat.”

Practically all individuals indicted in steroid conspiracy, steroid possession, and steroid distributions charges will ultimately reach plea agreements with federal prosecutors. But a plea agreement by a defendent does not always mean they have ratted out either distributors higher on the steroid supply chain or customers lower on the steroid supply chain.

Plea agreements, especially in victimless crimes like steroid possession, are often reached to ease an overburdened criminal justice system (”Plea deals help make courts efficient,” November 18, 2007).

Plea agreements can save time and money while bringing a faster resolution for the accused and accuser. Without them, experts say, the courts would become clogged, bogged down and overworked.

“Obviously, from the standpoint of the court being able to function efficiently, without plea agreements, the system would slow down dramatically,” said La Crosse County Circuit Judge Scott Horne, elected to the bench last spring after 22 years as county district attorney.

Prosecutors like plea agreements because they guarantee a conviction. There are several types of plea agreements. Defendants can plead guilty to a lesser charge or some of the charges for a speedy conviction. They can also agree to plead guilty in exchange for a lesser sentence. Obviously, these type of plea agreements do not make them a snitch or a rat.

Clearly, some plea agreements involve the cooperation with ongoing investigations and/or testifying against a co-defendant, etc. Even these cases don’t always involve snitching on others. For example, the “cooperaton” could involve teaching federal prosecutors how a major steroid smuggling operation works in exchange for a more lenient sentence.

Other plea agreements could involve testifying against a co-defendant or a party in a related investigation. Often times, prosecutors ask defendants to simply confirm the evidence already collected by prosecutors. But even then, sometimes the cooperation is really too innocuous to qualify the defendant as a “rat.” A good example is the recent testimony of Patrick Arnold (Ergopharm)  at Tammy Thomas’ doping trial. Pat explains his testimony here to readers of the MESO-Rx Blog:

I was basically forced into a very crappy situation. Last year right before i went to prison they subpoenaed me to a grand jury hearing. in that hearing they showed me evidence they had against tammy and it was clear to me they had all they needed to show i sold her stuff. So i told them yes i did.

if i did not, then i would have gone to prison. and it would not have done anything to help tammy anyway.

the good thing about this is that tammy’s attorneys are not even trying to deny she got stuff and took it, so my testimony this week was pretty moot. they are using another angle and surprisingly it turned out that my 3 hours on the stand helped tammy’s side much more then it helped the feds. 

Other plea agreements (usually the sealed variety) involve confidential informants or cooperating defendants involved in sting operatons; these are typically what are called “rats” or “snitches.”

But the problem with websites like WhosaRat.com is that when plea agreements are uploaded, members often do not discriminate and assume the agreements to be proof that the defendant is a rat.

Authorities point out that a plea deal is not necessarily proof that someone is an informant or plans to testify against another defendant.

While it is always wise to assume the worst to protect yourself, assumptions based on incomplete information may not always be accurate.