If you were arrested after days of messages with someone who turned out to be an undercover deputy, the first thing our attorneys look at is who pushed the conversation toward a crime. I’m Rocky Brancato, founder of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., a Tampa criminal defense firm, and a former police academy instructor who taught officers how investigations are supposed to be run. I have tried more than 150 jury trials to verdict, and our attorneys use that experience to take sting operations apart message by message, from the first contact to the arrest.

What is entrapment under Florida law?

Entrapment happens when a law enforcement officer, or someone working with or for one, induces or encourages a person to commit a crime using methods that create “a substantial risk that such crime will be committed by a person other than one who is ready to commit it.” That is the definition in section 777.201, Florida Statutes. The statute covers informants and civilians acting as police agents, not only sworn officers.

Under the same statute, a person “shall be acquitted” if he or she proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the criminal conduct occurred as a result of an entrapment. Preponderance means more likely than not, a lower bar than the State’s burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The statute also says the issue “shall be tried by the trier of fact,” which is usually the jury. At The Brancato Law Firm, we treat entrapment as a defense to build from the first day, because the evidence that proves it, the messages and the officer’s choices, is fixed the moment the investigation ends.

What are the two kinds of entrapment in Florida?

Florida recognizes two separate entrapment defenses: subjective entrapment, which is the statutory defense, and objective entrapment, which comes from the due process clause of the Florida Constitution. The first asks about the defendant; the second asks only about the police. Our attorneys raise both whenever the facts support them, because they fail and succeed for different reasons.

How does a Florida court decide subjective entrapment?

A Florida court decides subjective entrapment by asking three questions, set out by the Florida Supreme Court in Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1993). In Munoz, the Court read section 777.201 as adopting the subjective test and set the order of proof that Florida trial judges still follow today.

1. Inducement. Did a government agent induce the accused to commit the charged crime? The defense must prove this by a preponderance of the evidence.
2. Predisposition. If there was inducement, was the accused already “awaiting any propitious opportunity or was ready and willing, without persuasion, to commit the offense”? Once the defense produces evidence of no predisposition, the burden shifts to the State to rebut it beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. Judge or jury. If the facts are undisputed, inducement is shown, and the State lacks enough evidence of predisposition formed before and independent of the police conduct, the judge must rule for the defense as a matter of law. If the facts are disputed, or reasonable people could draw different conclusions, the jury decides.

The third question is where many sting cases are won or lost. When every message is preserved and the record shows the officer doing the persuading, our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm ask the judge to decide entrapment before a jury is ever picked.

What counts as police inducement?

Police inducement means persuasion that goes beyond offering a chance to commit a crime: repeated pleading, pressure on a reluctant person, appeals to sympathy or friendship, promises of reward, or taking the lead in introducing the illegal idea. Florida courts draw a firm line between inducement and opportunity. In the words the Second District repeated in 2023, “creating nothing more than an opportunity to commit a crime is not prohibited.”

These are the patterns our attorneys look for when we read a chat log or listen to an informant’s recorded calls. A single message where the person backs away can matter more than fifty messages of small talk. When an informant is involved, we also look at what the informant was promised, which our post on whether the State has to reveal a confidential informant explains in more detail.

How do prosecutors try to prove predisposition?

Prosecutors try to prove predisposition with evidence that the accused was ready to commit the crime before police ever got involved, such as prior similar conduct, earlier messages, or eagerness at the first opportunity. Under Munoz, the State may make “an appropriate and searching inquiry” into the accused’s conduct and may even use prior criminal history that would normally be kept from a jury. But that evidence counts only to the extent it shows predisposition “both prior to and independent of the government acts.”

That limit matters. Statements a person makes after an officer spent days wearing down his resistance are weak proof of what he was inclined to do before the officer appeared. Munoz also said a judge may rule entrapment as a matter of law even when the State presents prior convictions. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm separate the record into what the client said before inducement and what he said after it, and we build the predisposition argument around that timeline.

When does police misconduct violate due process?

Police misconduct violates due process, and bars the prosecution entirely, when law enforcement’s methods are so outrageous that a court will not let the case go forward regardless of the defendant’s predisposition. Munoz held that section 777.201 replaced the older objective test, but it preserved this due process defense for “egregious law enforcement conduct.” Two Florida Supreme Court decisions show what that looks like.

In State v. Glosson, 462 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1985), an informant was promised 10 percent of the civil forfeitures from the cases he developed, and he had to testify and cooperate in the prosecutions to get paid. The Court held that a trial court may dismiss charges on due process grounds when an informant stands to gain a contingent fee conditioned on testimony that is critical to the prosecution.

In State v. Williams, 623 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 1993), the Broward County Sheriff’s Office turned seized powder cocaine into crack cocaine for reverse-sting operations, and some of it was lost into the community. The Court held that illegally manufacturing crack for a reverse sting within 1,000 feet of a school violated due process and reversed the conviction. Cases like these are rare, and our attorneys raise objective entrapment only when the record supports it, because judges take the claim seriously only when it is precise.

How does entrapment work in online sting cases?

Online sting cases are where Florida’s entrapment law is most often tested, because the entire conversation between the officer and the accused is usually preserved word for word. Charges in these cases typically include using a computer to solicit a minor and traveling to meet a minor under section 847.0135, Florida Statutes; the traveling charge is a second-degree felony. The statute applies even when the “child” is an adult officer, because it covers a person “believed by the person to be a child.”

The volume of these cases is large. In 2025, Internet Crimes Against Children task forces conducted nearly 347,000 investigations and arrested more than 17,000 people nationw

Entrapment is a common response to these charges, and research shows it rarely wins by itself. A national study published in 2005 in Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, based on 2000 to 2001 case data, found that entrapment or police conduct was raised in 44 percent of undercover “proactive” cases, compared with 4 percent of cases involving real child victims. The same study found that 4 percent of offenders arrested in undercover cases had prior arrests for sexual offenses against minors, compared with 11 percent in real-victim cases, and the authors described the entrapment defenses they saw as common but not successful (Mitchell, Wolak, and Finkelhor, Crimes Against Children Research Center). That gap in prior records is why predisposition, not the raw fact of the sting, is usually the fight.

How DeMare v. State drew the line on adult-profile stings

In DeMare v. State, 298 So. 3d 1269 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020), a detective created a profile of an 18-year-old woman named “Amber” in the adult section of a dating site. Jason DeMare answered that adult profile. After four days of flirting as an adult, “Amber” said she was 14. DeMare immediately tried to end it and said sex would be illegal. The detective kept pressing: she said she liked older men, said her parents were out of town, accused him of being scared, and coaxed him for details. He had no record of offenses against minors.

The Second District Court of Appeal, which hears appeals from Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties, held that DeMare was entrapped as a matter of law, reversed his conviction for traveling to meet a minor, and ordered him discharged. The lesson is that an adult-profile start, a late age reveal, a clear refusal, and persistent police pressure can add up to entrapment that a judge must recognize without sending the case to a jury.

The same court has also shown the limits. In State v. Panebianco, 370 So. 3d 345 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023), a Sarasota County judge dismissed charges against a man who answered a 19-year-old’s profile but was told early and repeatedly that she was 14. The Second District reversed. It agreed he had shown a lack of predisposition, since he had no record of offenses against minors, but held that his own sexual messages created a question of predisposition for a jury, and that the operation was not outrageous enough to be objective entrapment. Our attorneys read every message with these two cases side by side. For more on the charges themselves, see our guides to solicitation of a child using a computer, what happens after a Tampa sex sting arrest, and what to do if you messaged a minor online.

Can entrapment get charges dismissed before trial?

Yes. Entrapment can end a case before trial through a sworn motion to dismiss under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4), which allows dismissal when “there are no material disputed facts and the undisputed facts do not establish a prima facie case of guilt.” The State can defeat that motion by showing a real factual dispute, and on the motion the judge reads the evidence in the light most favorable to the State.

In Hillsborough County, in our firm’s experience, prosecutors contest nearly every entrapment motion in a sting case, and the decision to file one can change the plea discussions already underway. That makes timing a strategic call, not a formality. Losing the motion also does not end the defense. Because the statute sends entrapment to the trier of fact, the same evidence can be argued to a jury at trial, and jurors may weigh the officer’s persistence differently than a judge reading a cold transcript. Our Hillsborough County criminal defense team plans for both stages from the start.

What should you do if you think police entrapped you?

If you think police entrapped you, stop all contact, say nothing to investigators, and get a defense attorney before the case is charged or before your first court date. The steps below protect the evidence that an entrapment defense depends on.

1. Do not answer more messages from the account, and do not try to explain yourself to it.
2. Do not delete anything. Deleting messages can look like consciousness of guilt and can lead to a separate tampering charge; the full thread is often your best evidence.
3. Write down, privately and for your lawyer only, how the contact started and when the other person first raised anything illegal.
4. Decline any interview. Politely say you want a lawyer, then stop talking.
5. Call a defense attorney right away. If you believe you are under investigation but have not been charged, our representation before charges are filed can sometimes shape what the prosecutor decides.

Frequently asked questions about the entrapment defense in Florida

Is it entrapment if the officer pretended to be an adult first?

It can be. In DeMare, the Second District found entrapment as a matter of law where the officer posed as an 18-year-old, revealed a younger age days later, and kept pushing after the man refused. The Brancato Law Firm compares the timing of the age reveal and the officer’s pressure in every sting case we take, as our guide to vigilante predator catchers also discusses for civilian stings.

Who has the burden of proof for entrapment in Florida?

The defense must first prove inducement by a preponderance of the evidence, and must offer some evidence of lack of predisposition. The burden then shifts to the State to prove predisposition beyond a reasonable doubt under Munoz and section 777.201. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm gather the background evidence, such as a clean record and the client’s history, that triggers that shift.

Does a prior criminal record defeat an entrapment defense?

Not automatically. Prosecutors may use prior conduct to argue predisposition, but Munoz said a judge may still find entrapment as a matter of law even when the State presents prior convictions, and the evidence must show predisposition formed before and independent of the police conduct. At The Brancato Law Firm, we look at whether a prior record has anything to do with the crime the officer was pushing.

Can entrapment charges be dropped in Florida?

Yes. Prosecutors can drop charges when the evidence of inducement is strong, and a judge can dismiss them on a successful motion. Our Tampa internet crimes defense attorneys present the inducement record to the prosecutor early when that gives the client the best chance at a dismissal or a reduced charge.

Is it entrapment if police only gave me the chance to commit a crime?

No. Florida courts hold that creating an opportunity to commit a crime is not entrapment; there must be persuasion or pressure that overcame a person who was not ready to commit it. The Brancato Law Firm looks for the moment the conversation turned and who turned it, because that is usually where the defense lives.

Can I raise entrapment if I have not been charged yet?

Entrapment is a defense raised in court, but the groundwork starts during the investigation, when the messages can be preserved and the prosecutor has not committed to a charge. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm offer pre-file advocacy for people who believe a chat or a meeting is under investigation.

For how this fits into the rest of a case, see our overview of how a Florida criminal case moves from investigation to appeal.

Talk to a Tampa defense attorney about entrapment

The window to preserve a sting case’s best evidence closes quickly, often within days of the arrest. Call The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., founded by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato, at (813) 727-7159 at any hour, and our attorneys will review how the contact started, who raised the crime, and whether an entrapment motion fits your case. Our office is two blocks from the courthouse, and we defend clients in Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties. Our firm has Spanish-speaking staff, and attorney Jean-Luc Adrien speaks Spanish, Haitian Creole, and French. Read our guide for Spanish-speaking criminal defense clients in Tampa.

For more about our defense strategies, visit our Internet Crimes page.

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A.
620 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 205, Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 727-7159
Serving Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. is a Tampa-based criminal defense practice. We are not affiliated with any other Brancato-named law firms.

Drug cases built on a confidential informant are usually won or lost at a pretrial hearing most people never hear about: the motion to disclose the informant. I learned how these cases are built from the inside, first in the Major Crimes Unit and then as a former Chief Operations Officer of the Hillsborough County Public Defender’s Office, where I oversaw a staff of over 100 attorneys. I’m Rocky Brancato, founder of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., a Tampa criminal defense firm, and in more than 25 years in Hillsborough County courtrooms I have seen informant cases fall apart once the defense forces the State to choose between naming its source and keeping its case. Our attorneys file these motions in Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties.

What Is a Confidential Informant in Florida?

A confidential informant is a person who secretly works with police, usually to avoid arrest or reduce a sentence, and who can make controlled buys or report on people he or she knows. Florida defines the term in section 914.28, Florida Statutes: a person who cooperates confidentially with law enforcement, “seeks to avoid arrest or prosecution for a crime, or mitigate punishment,” and can “make a controlled buy or controlled sale” or supply regular information about criminal activity.

That definition matters to the defense. Most informants are working off their own charges, which gives them a reason to deliver an arrest. In trafficking cases, section 893.135(4) lets the state attorney ask the sentencing court to reduce or suspend the sentence of a person who provides “substantial assistance” in the arrest or conviction of others. That incentive is why informant cases deserve close scrutiny, and our Tampa drug crimes attorney page explains how these prosecutions usually begin.

Confidential informants are most common in drug investigations, and drug arrests are rising locally. Hillsborough County recorded 10,502 drug arrests in 2025, up from 8,124 in 2024 and 7,151 in 2023, according to Florida Department of Law Enforcement arrest data published by Florida Health CHARTS. Many of those cases start with a controlled buy arranged through an informant.

Does the State Have to Reveal a Confidential Informant’s Identity?

Only in two situations. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(g)(2) says disclosure of a confidential informant is not required unless the informant “is to be produced at a hearing or trial” or a failure to disclose “will infringe the constitutional rights of the defendant.” Outside those two situations, the State holds a privilege to keep the informant’s name secret, and the defense carries the burden of showing why an exception applies.

When the informant testifies

If the State calls the informant as a witness, the true name must be disclosed. In State v. Hassberger, 350 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1977), two men were arrested by Orlando police after delivering cannabis to an informant, and the trial court let the informant testify under the name “Ed” without disclosing his real name or address. The Florida Supreme Court held that “the use of a ‘John Doe’ witness is clearly prohibited, and the correct name of the witness must be supplied.” It allowed only an “exceedingly narrow” exception for a current address when the State proves an actual threat to the witness, and it said “all doubts must be resolved in favor of the accused’s sixth and fourteenth amendment right to confront the witnesses against him.”

When keeping the secret would make the trial unfair

The constitutional exception comes from Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957), a federal heroin case in which the informant, known only as “John Doe,” set up the sale and was the only other person present. The U.S. Supreme Court held that when the informant’s identity “is relevant and helpful to the defense of an accused, or is essential to a fair determination of a cause, the privilege must give way,” and that if the government still refuses, the court may dismiss the case. The Court rejected any fixed rule and required judges to weigh “the crime charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer’s testimony, and other relevant factors.”

How Do You Force the State to Disclose a Confidential Informant?

You file a sworn motion that ties the informant to a specific, legally recognized defense. Florida courts do not accept a general claim that the defense needs the name to prepare. Our attorneys follow these steps:

1. Identify the informant’s role. Depositions of the case agent and the controlled-buy paperwork usually show whether the informant was a tipster, a witness, or the person who arranged the deal.
2. Name a specific defense. Entrapment, misidentification, lack of knowledge of what was in a package, and a fabricated buy are the defenses that most often justify disclosure.
3. Support it with sworn facts. The motion or an attached affidavit must allege facts that, if true, make the defense possible.
4. Ask for an in-camera hearing. The judge questions the informant privately, outside the defendant’s presence, to decide whether the testimony would help the defense.
5. Hold the State to the result. If the judge orders disclosure and the State refuses, the remedy can be dismissal, as Roviaro recognized.

The Second District Court of Appeal, which hears appeals from Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties, has set out that standard several times. In Bailey v. State, 994 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), a homeless man in Charlotte County swore that a stranger offered him $50 to deliver a container he never looked inside; the stranger was a paid informant and the recipient was an undercover officer. The court held that “when a defendant files a sworn motion or affidavit alleging facts regarding the informant’s involvement that, if true, would support the possibility of a specific defense, the trial court is required to conduct an in-camera hearing,” reversed the conviction, and sent the case back for that hearing. The court added that a defendant does not have to allege every element of entrapment; the defense only has to be possible on the facts alleged.

Hill v. State, 198 So. 3d 830 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) reached the same result. Kenneth Hill swore that an informant he knew had repeatedly urged him to buy cocaine, and that the earlier calls between them were never recorded. Because Hill showed the informant “was more than a mere tipster but was the sole moving force in arranging the buy,” the Second District reversed his conviction and required an in-camera hearing. A new trial follows if the judge orders disclosure.

What If the Informant Was Only a Tipster?

A tipster is almost never disclosed. The Second District held in State v. Burgos, 985 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) that “an informant’s identity need not be disclosed when the informant’s sole role is to provide probable cause in support of a search warrant.” Burgos wanted the informant’s name to test whether the controlled buy described in a detective’s warrant affidavit really happened, but he offered no evidence that it did not, and the court quashed the trial judge’s disclosure order. The court called a bare claim that the defense cannot prepare without the name insufficient.

Burgos also shows where the opening is. The court left room for a revised motion “supported by evidence sufficient to justify” an in-camera hearing, and it noted that proof the affidavit was false would support a motion to suppress under Franks v. Delaware. When the informant is the only basis for a warrant, our attorneys look for evidence that the buy did not happen as described, and we raise it through a motion to suppress.

Being present is not enough on its own either. In State v. Zamora, 534 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), a Miami-Dade trial judge dismissed cocaine trafficking charges when the State could not produce an informant who allegedly introduced an undercover officer to the sellers and witnessed the sale. The Third District reversed, holding that “merely because a confidential informant is a witness to relevant events in a criminal case does not, without more, require the confidential informant’s production,” because the defendants had not supported a specific defense with sworn facts. The lesson for defendants is that the quality of the motion decides the issue.

Can a Confidential Informant Entrap You in Florida?

Yes. Florida’s entrapment statute, section 777.201, applies to “a person engaged in cooperation with a law enforcement officer,” which includes a confidential informant. Entrapment occurs when that person induces or encourages someone to commit a crime using methods that “create a substantial risk that such crime will be committed by a person other than one who is ready to commit it.” The defendant must prove entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence, and the issue goes to the trier of fact.

That is why the informant’s identity is so often the whole case. Only the informant can confirm the repeated calls, the pressure, or the offer that came before the recorded buy, and police usually record only the final transaction. Our guide to the entrapment defense in Florida explains the subjective and objective tests in more detail.

Why Is Informant Testimony Treated With Suspicion?

Because informants are paid in leniency, cash, or both, and research has tied their testimony to wrongful convictions. A 2004 study by Northwestern University School of Law’s Center on Wrongful Convictions, The Snitch System, found that of 111 death row exonerations since the 1970s, 51 involved snitch testimony, or 45.9 percent.

Florida responded in 2014. On the recommendation of the Florida Innocence Commission, the Florida Supreme Court amended Rule 3.220 so that prosecutors must disclose informant witnesses, “whether in custody or not,” along with the informant’s criminal history, any statement the informant attributes to the defendant, and anything the informant received or expects to receive in exchange, as reported by The Florida Bar News. Our post on fighting jailhouse informant testimony covers that rule in detail.

Does Rachel’s Law Help a Defendant?

Only indirectly. Section 914.28, known as Rachel’s Law, was passed after Rachel Hoffman, a 23-year-old Tallahassee Police Department informant, was murdered during a 2008 controlled buy. It requires agencies that use informants to tell each recruit that the agency “cannot promise inducements such as a grant of immunity, dropped or reduced charges, or reduced sentences,” to offer a chance to consult a lawyer on request, to screen informants for reliability and criminal history, and to keep secure records on each one.

The statute also says a violation “may not be relied upon to create any additional right, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a defendant in a criminal proceeding.” A Rachel’s Law violation will not get a case dismissed by itself. What the agency’s informant file shows, such as payments, prior false information, or deals made off the books, can still matter to credibility and to the in-camera hearing, and our attorneys ask for it.

What Should You Do If You Think an Informant Set You Up?

Talk to a defense lawyer before you talk to anyone else, and do not try to find or contact the informant. These steps protect the defense:

1. Do not discuss the case on a jail phone or by text. Those calls and messages are recorded and often end up in discovery.
2. Do not contact the person you suspect. Contact can lead to a witness tampering charge and gives the State a new recording.
3. Write down the history of every call, message, and meeting with that person, including who brought up drugs first.
4. Keep your phone records. Call logs and messages showing repeated requests from the informant are the sworn facts a disclosure motion needs.
5. Get counsel involved early. If you are still under investigation, representation before charges are filed can shape what the State does next.

In our experience in Hillsborough County, informant drug cases usually show their weaknesses in discovery, when the controlled-buy paperwork and the agent’s deposition reveal how the deal was arranged. Our Hillsborough County criminal defense attorney page explains how felony cases move through the 13th Judicial Circuit, and our post on signs you are being investigated covers what to watch for before an arrest.

Frequently Asked Questions About Confidential Informants in Florida

What is the difference between a confidential informant and an undercover officer?

An undercover officer is a sworn police officer posing as a buyer or seller, while a confidential informant is a civilian working with police, usually to reduce his or her own charges. The Brancato Law Firm treats the difference as important, because an undercover officer is a disclosed State witness who can be deposed, while an informant’s identity must be won through a disclosure motion.

Can charges be dropped if the State refuses to reveal the informant?

Yes. If a judge orders disclosure and the State refuses, the court may dismiss the charge, and prosecutors sometimes dismiss on their own to protect a valuable informant. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm file disclosure motions early so the State has to make that choice before trial; see our drug crimes defense page.

Do I get to be present at the in-camera hearing with the informant?

Usually not, because the judge questions the informant privately to protect the identity while deciding whether the testimony would help the defense. The Brancato Law Firm prepares the judge for that hearing by spelling out in the sworn motion exactly what the informant should be asked.

Can a confidential informant testify against me without my lawyer knowing who they are?

No. Under State v. Hassberger, a testifying informant’s true name must be disclosed, and only a current address can be withheld on proof of an actual threat. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm use that name to pull the informant’s criminal history and any deals made for the testimony.

Can I be charged based only on a controlled buy with an informant?

Yes, a controlled buy watched by officers can support a sale or delivery charge even if the informant never testifies. The Brancato Law Firm examines whether the informant was searched before and after the buy, whether the money was recorded, and whether the recording actually shows the exchange.

I was arrested after a reverse sting where an informant sold to me. Is that entrapment?

It can be, if the informant pressured or induced you and you were not already ready to commit the crime, as section 777.201 describes. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm build that defense from the messages and calls that came before the recorded deal; our entrapment guide explains the standard.

For how this fits into the rest of a case, see our overview of how a Florida criminal case moves from investigation to appeal.

Talk to a Tampa Defense Attorney About an Informant Case

The disclosure motion has to be built before trial, and the phone records that support it can disappear. Call The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., founded by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato, at (813) 727-7159, and our attorneys will start by finding out exactly what the informant did in your case. You can call us at any hour, and our office is two blocks from the courthouse. Our firm has Spanish-speaking staff, and attorney Jean-Luc Adrien speaks Spanish, Haitian Creole, and French. Read our guide for Spanish and Haitian Creole speakers facing criminal charges.

For more about our defense strategies, visit our Tampa Drug Crimes Attorney page.

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A.
620 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 205, Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 727-7159
Serving Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. is a Tampa-based criminal defense practice. We are not affiliated with any other Brancato-named law firms.

I’m Rocky Brancato, founder of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., a Tampa criminal defense firm. I tried more than 150 jury trials to verdict and led the Major Crimes Unit at the Hillsborough County Public Defender’s Office, where jailhouse informants surfaced in the most serious cases we handled — homicides, sex crimes, and anything with a reward attached. Our attorneys treat every incarcerated witness as a case within the case, because the incentives to lie are enormous and the law provides ways to prove it.

Why Is Jailhouse Informant Testimony So Unreliable?

Because the witness has something to gain and little to lose. A jailhouse informant — an inmate who claims another inmate confessed to him — typically hopes for a reduced sentence, dropped charges, returned property, or simple goodwill from the prosecutors who control his fate. The testimony is easy to manufacture (crime details circulate in jails through news coverage and paperwork), difficult to disprove, and delivered by someone with practice persuading people. Wrongful-conviction litigation across the country has repeatedly traced convictions to informants who later admitted inventing confessions.

Florida law gives the defense trial tools to expose all of it. Under Fla. Stat. § 90.608, any party may attack a witness’s credibility by showing bias — which includes every benefit the informant hopes to receive — along with inconsistent statements and contradicting evidence, and under Fla. Stat. § 90.610, the informant’s prior convictions come in to impeach him. The State must also disclose deals and benefits, and when it hides them — or lets the informant lie about them — the Constitution takes over.

Exposing the deal carries a risk the defense has to plan for. In Nixon v. State, No. 1D2024-2412 (Fla. 1st DCA July 29, 2026), a Leon County felony murder case, the defense got a cooperating witness to admit he faced life, had no promises, and hoped for a better deal by helping convict the defendant. The First District held that this cross-examination implied the witness made up his story to earn a deal, which opened the door for the State to call a detective to repeat the witness’s earlier, consistent account under Fla. Stat. § 90.801(2)(b). The court added that an arrest alone does not prove the motive to lie already existed when the earlier statement was made. Before our attorneys cross-examine an informant about a deal, we pin down when every prior statement was made and what the witness stood to gain at that moment, so the jury does not hear the State’s story twice.

What Is a Giglio Violation?

A Giglio violation occurs when the State presents or fails to correct testimony it knows is false, and the lie matters. The doctrine comes from Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), where the government’s key witness falsely denied being promised immunity. As the Florida Supreme Court restated the test this summer, the defense must prove that (1) the State presented or failed to correct false testimony, (2) the State knew the testimony was false, and (3) the false evidence was material. The classic jailhouse-informant Giglio claim involves exactly what its namesake case involved: the snitch tells the jury he was promised nothing, and the prosecutor — who knows better — stays silent.

What Did the U.S. Supreme Court Decide in Whitton v. Dixon?

In Whitton v. Dixon, No. 25-580 (U.S. June 1, 2026), the Supreme Court revived a Florida prisoner’s jailhouse-informant challenge — and tightened the rules courts must follow when they decide whether a snitch’s lie “mattered.” The informant, Jake Ozio, was a high-school student jailed after a spring-break arrest who testified that he overheard Whitton confess to a murder. Ozio also told the jury he had no prior criminal history. That was false — his juvenile records, which the State possessed at trial, showed prior charges including assault and burglary — and the jury never learned who was actually testifying against Whitton.

The federal appeals court had brushed the lie aside as immaterial, partly by pointing to DNA evidence developed after trial. The Supreme Court vacated that decision: materiality asks whether the false testimony influenced the jury’s verdict, and evidence the jury never saw — evidence that did not even exist at trial — “sheds no light” on that question. The case went back down to be decided on the record the jury actually heard. For defendants, Whitton is a meaningful win: courts cannot launder a Giglio violation through hindsight, propping up a tainted verdict with material the jurors never considered.

How Do Florida Courts Handle Informant Lies About Plea Deals?

Florida’s appellate courts are actively policing this — including a decision just days ago. In Mensah v. State, No. 6D2023-3105 (Fla. 6th DCA Aug. 28, 2026), a defendant alleged in a postconviction motion that the State’s key witness was promised a lenient plea deal and then testified, falsely, that he had been promised nothing — a textbook Giglio allegation. The trial court denied the claim without a hearing. The Sixth District reversed: unless the record conclusively refutes the allegation, the defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. The court sent the case back for the State to either produce record proof that no deal existed or face a hearing where the deal question gets litigated.

Mensah matters for a practical reason: defendants rarely have documents proving a secret deal when they file. The decision confirms that at the pleading stage, the burden runs the other way — the record must disprove the claim, not the defendant prove it — which keeps the courthouse door open long enough for discovery and testimony to do their work.

Why Did the Florida Supreme Court Reject the Informant Claims in Rhodes?

Because the informants’ new stories were not believed — and Rhodes is the honest counterweight every defendant should understand. In Rhodes v. State, No. SC2024-1099 (Fla. July 2, 2026), a death-row prisoner presented recantations from two jailhouse witnesses who now claimed law enforcement coached their testimony and rewarded them with benefits — including, one claimed, the return of seized property such as dozens of ounces of gold and silver. The postconviction court heard the witnesses, found them not credible, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed, repeating its long-standing view that recantation testimony is “as a general matter, ‘exceedingly unreliable’” — especially where the witnesses could not explain waiting nearly forty years to come forward.

Rhodes also answered a question our clients ask constantly: can police plant an informant near me at the jail? The Sixth Amendment bars the State from deliberately using an informant to draw statements out of you — but only for offenses on which your right to counsel has attached, because that right is offense-specific. An inmate awaiting trial on one charge can lawfully be worked by an informant about a different, uncharged crime. That is exactly why the safest rule in custody is absolute: discuss your case with no one but your lawyer — not cellmates, not friends on recorded jail phones, no one.

What Did 2026’s Informant Decisions Change?

Three courts, three months, three lessons — together they map where informant challenges now stand.

What Should You Do If an Informant Is Part of Your Case?

Demand everything, immediately — the benefits paper trail is where these witnesses fall apart. When a jailhouse informant appears on the State’s witness list in a Tampa Bay case, our attorneys move for disclosure of every promise, understanding, or benefit (formal or informal), the informant’s complete criminal history including juvenile records, his other cases and pending charges, every prior occasion he has testified or offered information for the State, and the jail records showing how he came to be housed near our client. We depose the informant — Florida allows depositions in felony cases — and lock him into a story before trial. And if the case is already over, Whitton and Mensah show the fight is not: a lie about a record or a deal, known to the State, supports a Rule 3.850 motion, and the standards applied to it were just clarified in the defense’s favor. Timing matters at both ends — disclosure fights are won before trial, and postconviction deadlines are unforgiving — so if a snitch built or is building the case against you or a family member, our guide to what to do after being arrested in Tampa covers the first hours, and this issue is one to raise with counsel in the first meeting. Informant testimony is most common in the most serious cases — see our complete guide to homicide charges in Florida for how these trials are actually defended.

For more about our defense strategies, visit our Hillsborough County criminal defense page.

For how this fits into the rest of a case, see our overview of how a Florida criminal case moves from investigation to appeal.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do jailhouse informants get deals for testifying?

Frequently, yes — reduced charges, sentencing consideration, or other benefits — and the State is constitutionally required to disclose them. Some deals are informal (“we’ll make your cooperation known”), which are still benefits the jury is entitled to hear about. Our attorneys pursue the paper trail behind every incarcerated witness because the undisclosed benefit is often the case’s breaking point.

What happens if a prosecution witness lied at my trial?

If the State knew the testimony was false and there is a reasonable likelihood the lie affected the verdict, that is a Giglio violation and grounds for a new trial. In Whitton v. Dixon (U.S. 2026), the Supreme Court held courts must judge that question on the evidence the jury actually heard. These claims are raised on appeal or by postconviction motion, and The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. handles both.

What is the difference between a Brady violation and a Giglio violation?

Brady is about suppression: the State hid favorable evidence from the defense. Giglio is about false testimony: the State presented or failed to correct testimony it knew was false. A hidden deal with an informant can violate both at once — the deal was concealed (Brady) and the informant denied it on the stand (Giglio).

Can police put an informant in my cell to get me to talk?

Once you are charged and your right to counsel has attached, the State cannot deliberately use an informant to elicit statements about that offense. But as Rhodes v. State (Fla. 2026) confirms, the right is offense-specific — an informant can lawfully gather statements about uncharged crimes. Never discuss your case with anyone in custody; assume every cellmate conversation and jail call is evidence.

Can an old conviction be overturned because an informant recanted?

It is possible but hard: Florida courts treat recantations as “exceedingly unreliable,” and a decades-late change of story faces heavy skepticism, as Rhodes shows. The stronger paths pair the recantation with objective proof — records showing undisclosed benefits, or documents proving the trial testimony false. The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. evaluates postconviction informant claims with exactly that evidence-first approach.

Does the jury get told that a witness is a jailhouse informant?

The jury hears it if the defense puts it in front of them — through cross-examination on bias under Fla. Stat. § 90.608, prior convictions under § 90.610, and the informant’s expectations of benefit. That is why the pretrial disclosure fight matters: you cannot cross-examine on a deal you never learned about.

The summer of 2026 was the most active season for informant law in years — Whitton in June, Rhodes in July, Mensah in August — and each one changes how these witnesses are fought in Florida courtrooms. If a jailhouse informant is part of the case against you or someone you love, call the attorneys of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. — founded by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato — at (813) 727-7159 now, before the disclosure deadlines pass and the informant’s story hardens in front of a jury.

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A.
620 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 205, Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 727-7159
Serving Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. is a Tampa-based criminal defense practice. We are not affiliated with any other Brancato-named law firms.