Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 247 Fed.Appx. 730, 734 (6th Cir.2007). Instead, he merely argued that the Cl “was the person that formed the facts for the issuance of the search warrant,” and so “[i]n order to present any viable defense,” the requested information was necessary. (Mot. for Discovery, R. 40, PagelD 164). Further, on appeal, Ray has not demonstrated to this Court how disclosure would have assisted him at trial; he only asserts that the Cl could have testified at trial about the details of the alleged purchase during the controlled buy, even though Ray was never charged for that alleged sale. The only record evidence of the role played by the Cl in this case -is that the Cl supplied the information to law enforcement that ultimately led to a fruitful search. See Beals, 698 F.3d 248, 270 (6th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). Similar to Beals, in this case, Ray was not 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that information from confidential informant was reliable and credible where affidavit referred to previous instances in which informant provided correct information to police affiants own investigation and controlled buy of contraband confirmed information and second informant supplied same information to police (B) holding that trial court improperly dismissed charges pretrial because the state did not disclose the identity of a confidential informant (C) holding that because the defendants offer of proof failed to show that the affiant was untruthful the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to order disclosure of the informant (D) holding that the district court was within its discretion not to order disclosure of the governments confidential informant where the informant only helped orchestrate the search that led to discovery of incriminating evidence not the crimes themselves and could not testify to any relevant fact (E) holding corroborating evidence sufficient that officer drove informant to defendants house saw defendant admit informant and saw informant come out with drugs and defendants voice was identified on audio tape of transaction
Output (English): holding that because the defendants offer of proof failed to show that the affiant was untruthful the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to order disclosure of the informant