Before allowing a jailhouse snitch/informant to testify, a committee of prosecutors should be able to provide satisfactory answers to the following questions: (a) Is there corroborating evidence to support their statement, other than the testimony of another snitch? (b) Does the statement provide details of the crime, or lead to evidence that could only be known by the perpetrator? (c) Could the incriminating evidence have been obtained from a source other than the accused, such as press accounts or legal proceedings? (d) Does the snitch/informant have a reputation for being dishonest? And (e) Does the snitch/ informant regularly provide incriminating evidence? There should be a presumption that the testimony of a jailhouse snitch/informant is unreliable, and the prosecutor should be required to overcome that presumption before a jury is allowed to hear the evidence. Any deal that police officers or prosecutors make with a snitch/informant should be recorded, preferably videotaped. Finally, the uncorroborated testimony of a jailhouse snitch/informant witness about the confession or admission of the defendant should never be the sole basis for imposition of a death penalty.