Can an informant be motivated to inform on a defendant by a promise of leniency?

Defendant points out that Cox spoke with prosecutors more than once, that he informed on defendant and that he subsequently received what appears to have been favorable treatment as to various penalties. We have not found such circumstances sufficient to support a conclusion that an informant was motivated to inform by prosecutorial promises of leniency. (See People v. Pensinger (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1210, 1249-1250, 278 Cal.Rptr. 640, 805 P.2d 899.) In Pensinger, we observed: "[The inmate-informant]'s housing arrangement had nothing to do with any hope of eliciting information from defendant.... [N]o officer ever promised [the inmate-informant] any benefit. No one asked him to perform any service. The police simply made use [16 Cal.4th 205] of [the inmate-informant]'s own motivation to inform on defendant, a technique we found not to be a knowing subversion of the defendant's right to counsel...." (People v. Pensinger, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 1250, 278 Cal.Rptr. 640, 805 P.2d 899, citing People v. Whitt (1984) 36 Cal.3d 724, 742-743, 205 Cal.Rptr. 810, 685 P.2d 1161.)