Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01154/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01154-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stephen Moralez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED 

U(ljced Sraces Court of AppeaJs 

Tenth Circuit . 

PUBLISH JUL G- 1990 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL~OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appe llee, 

v . No. 89-1154 

STEPHEN MORALEZ , 

Defendant-Appe l lant . 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

For the District of Colorado 

D.C. No. 88-CR-299 

James P . Moran, Assistant U.S. Attorney (Michael J . Norton, United 

States Attorney , with him on the bri ef ), Denver , Colo rado, for 

Plaintiff-Appellee . 

P . Arthur Tague , Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant. 

Befor e MCKAY and MOORE, Ci rcuit Judges, and DUMBAULD, Senior 

District Judge.* 

MOORE, Circui t J udge. 

*Honorable Edward Dumbauld , Senior District Judge for the Western 

District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 89-1154 Document: 01019438006 Date Filed: 07/06/1990 Page: 1 
Stephen Moralez appeals his conviction for conspiracy to 

possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 

U.S.C. § 846; possession with intent to distribute 195 pounds of 

marijuana, in violation of 21 u.s.c. § 84l(a)(l) and 18 U.S.C. 

§ 2; and distribution of one pound of marijuana, in violation of 

21 U.S.C. § 84l{a}(1) and 18 u.s.c. § 2. Mr. Moralez contends the 

district court improperly denied his motion to disclose the 

identity of a confidential informant. Because we are unable to 

determine from the record whether the district court conducted the 

balancing test required under Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 

53 (1957), and whether disclosure is essential to a fair 

determination of the case, we remand to the district court for the 

limited purpose of conducting in camera proceedings. 

I. 

On October 27, 1988, FBI Agent Rita Cacciola advised other 

FBI agents she received information from a confidential informant 

that an individual named Julian Roge~ Sanchez was dealing 

marijuana out of a service station. FBI agents and officers from 

the Adams County, Colorado, Sheriff's Office initiated 

surveillance of a service station in Adams County. 

After observing Mr. Sanchez take a camouflage bag apparently 

containing marijuana from the service station and distribute 

marijuana in a car in a nearby parking lot, police arrested Mr. 

Sanchez. Then, the agents and officers approached the service 

station where Mr. Moralez walked up to the door. When an agent 

identified himself as an FBI agent, Mr. Moralez turned and ran to 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-1154 Document: 01019438006 Date Filed: 07/06/1990 Page: 2 
the . back of 

codefendants 

the rear door . 

and arrested 

t he se rvice stat ion. Other o ffi cers observed 

Felipe Alamillo and Ronald Pinelli starting to exit 

The agents forc ibly entered the se rv ice station 

Mr. Moralez and Mr. Pinelli. Adv ised that another 

ndividual ~wa s sti ll i nside the station , the 

conducted a full search of all seven 

agents entered and 

rooms . They found Mr. 

Alamillo in the attic and arrested him. Marijuana was observed 

throughout the se rvi ce station. The agents found 136 s mall 

p l astic bags of marijuana and three large garbage bags containing 

a ba le and several bricks of ma ri juana. In all, the age nts 

recovered 195 pounds of the substance. 

Mr. Mora lez, Mr. Sanchez , and Mr. Alamillo were tried 

together . Prior to the trial, Mr . Moralez made a motion for 

disclosure of t he ident ity of the confidential info rman t . At ~he 

hea ring o n the motion, c ounsel for Mr. Moralez claime d that the 

informant was a witness to the crime and c ould support Mr . 

Mo ralez' s con ten tion he was no t involved in Mr. San chez's ill egal 

drug operations . The government responded t hat disclosure was not 

necessar y becaus e the informant was a mere t i pster who was not 

present at the time t his crime occurr ed . No evide nce or offer of 

proof was taken , a nd the court denied the motion . Mr . Moralez and 

his code fe ndan ts wer e found gui lty by ju ry verdic t on al l t hree 

c ounts of the i ndictment . The district court den ied Mr . Mora l ez's 

mo tion fo r new trial. Th is appeal f ollows. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-1154 Document: 01019438006 Date Filed: 07/06/1990 Page: 3 
II. 

We review a district court's denial o f a motion for 

disclosure o f a confidential informant for abuse of discretion. 

Uni t ed States v. Fixen, 780 F .2d 1434, 1439 (9th Cir. 1 986); 

United States ·v. Martinez, 487 F.2d 973 (lOth Cir. 1973) . 

In Roviaro, 353 U.S . 53 , the Supreme Court hel d that an 

informant's identity must be revealed whenever it would be 

relevant and helpful to an accused's defense or esse ntial to a 

f air determination of a cause. Id. at 60-61. Where the 

government opposes discl osure of the identity of an informant, a 

trial judge must balance the publ i c's i nterest in protecting the 

flow of info rma tion against the individual's right to pr epa re his 

or her defense . Id. at 62 . Whether a proper balance renders 

nondisclosure erroneous must depend on the particular 

circumst ances of each case, taking into consideration the crime 

cha r ged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the 

informant's t estimony, and other rel evant f actors. Id. 

I n mak ing the r equisite showing under the Rov iaro standard, 

the de fendant must present more than mer~ speculation about the 

possible usefulness of an informant's testimony. United Sta t es v. 

Zamora, 784 P. 2d 1025, 1030 (lOth Cir. 1986). Disclosure of an 

informant is not required where the information sought from him o r 

her would be merely cumula t ive, or where the informan t is not a 

participant in or a witness to the crime charged. Un ited 

States v. Scafe, 822 F.2d 928, 93 3 ( lO th Cir. 19 87) ; United 

States v. Halbert, 668 F.2d 489, 496 (lOth Cir. 1982}. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-1154 Document: 01019438006 Date Filed: 07/06/1990 Page: 4 
In this case, counsel for Mr. Morale~ clearly stated how the 

informant's .testimony was essential to Mr. Moralez's defense. The 

confidential informant would testify to critical issues in the 

case: who owned the marijuana and whethe r Mr. Morale z was 

involved ·in Mr. Sanchez's drug operations. This testimony would 

not be cumulative because it is the only testimony that could 

support Mr. Moralez' s defense theory that he was not involved in 

the drug operation at all , but was only in the wrong place at the 

wrong time. Counsel contended the confidential informant's 

test imony would provide a different perspective than the test imony 

of Mr. Alami l lo, codefendant, and Mr. Pinelli, Mr. Sanchez's 

brother-in-law, both of whom counsel argued, had motives for 

implicating Mr. Moralez. The defense argued . the confidential 

informant would prov ide a way for Mr. Moral ez to impeach these 

witnesses' testimony about his involvement. Th us, the informant 

cou l d provi de additional potential evidence which would be 

essential to Mr. Moralez' s de fe nse. 

The government retorted that d isclosure was not necessary 

because the confidential i nformant was a "mere tipster" and not an 

act ive participant in the criminal act ivity charged. Zamora, 784 

F.2d at 1030 . With no more before it tha n the prosecutor's 

representation, the distri ct court agreed with the government and 

denied the motion for disclosure. It is unc lea r from the record 

on what basis the district court conc luded the confidential 

informant was not an active participant i n t he c rime . 

Furthermore, we cannot tell from the record whether and how the 

district court balanced the benefits of disclosure and production 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-1154 Document: 01019438006 Date Filed: 07/06/1990 Page: 5 
for Mr. Morale z against the resulting harm to ···-the - government as· 

r equired by Rovia ro , 353 U.S. a t 62. 

In 

1976), 

United States v. 

the Fifth Circuit 

Fischer, 53 1 F.2d 783, 787 (5th Cir. 

confidential informants fa l l 

explained how cases involving 

into several broad categories . At 

o ne extreme are the cases where the info rmant is a mere tipster, 

a nd dis clo sure i s not ·requir e d. See , e.g., Zamo r a , 784 F .2d at 

1 030; Halbert, 668 F.2d at 496. At the other ex t reme are ca s es 

s uch a s Roviaro its elf where the informant has played a crucial 

role in the alleged cr i minal transac tion, and discl o sure a nd 

production of the informant are required to ensure a fair tri a l. 

See, e.g., Uni t ed States v. Price , 783 F .2d 1132, 1140 (4th Cir . 

1986). In addition, there are cas es where there is a slight 

pos sibility a defendant might benefit from discl osure, but the 

gover nment has demonst ra ted a compelling need to prote ct i ts 

informant . Fischer, 531 F.2d at 787 . 

Aft er rev i ewing the record, the Fi scher court r emand ed for in 

camera proceedings because it was unable to determine in whi ch 

category the case should be pla ced and whether the informant's 

t estimony was essential to a fair trial. Id . at 78 7-88 . 

Similarly, in United States v . Ordone z , 737 F.2d 793 (9th Cir . 

1984), the Ninth Circuit remanded for de novo in camera 

p roceed ing s and r equir ed a complete record be made because it 

could not de t ermine wheth er the Roviaro balancing test was 

properly applied. Id. a t 809. 

On the record before this court, we are unable to determine 

the degree of involvement of the confide ntial informant. I t is 

-6-

Appellate Case: 89-1154 Document: 01019438006 Date Filed: 07/06/1990 Page: 6 
dis tinctly pos sibl e this informant was mo re t han a mere tipster . 

It would appear t he i nformant witnessed_a t least the pre para tio ns 

of the crime and saw Mr. Sanchez i n possession of the truck 

to transport the marijuana. Further , the informant 

used 

heard 

s ta tements fr om Mr . . Sanchez regarding possession of the marijuana , 

s torage at the service s tation, and the ongoing process of 

we i gh ing a nd pack a ging the ma r ij ua na f or r edistribu tion. 

Conversely, we a r e unabl e to conclude f rom the reco rd tha t 

dis closure is essential to a fair determination of the case. 

While the i n forma nt may have witnessed the preparations to the 

crime, he or she was not present at the serv ice sta tion at the 

time of the arrest , and there is no additional evidence indicating 

the informant was a member o f the conspiracy. As ih Fischer , we 

can only guess abo ut t he s ubstance o f the testimony which this 

informant would give. 531 F.2d at 788. 

We are also lef t to speculate about the inter e sts whi c h the 

government may have in resis ting d isclosure a nd p roductio n in thi s 

particular case. In the hea r ing before the district court, the 

government did not articulate any reasons for withholding 

dis closur e of the inf ormant. Therefore , we cannot tell whether 

the tri al court c o nduc ted, but simply di d not a rticu la te, the 

balance between the public interest in disc losi ng re l evant 

evi denc e which is essentia l to a f ai r de te rmi nat i on o f t he caus e 

and t he government's interest in protecti ng the con fide nti a l 

informant. Roviaro, 353 U.S. at 62. 

Thus, we conclude the district cou r t a bused its discretion by 

denyi ng the motion based upon the record before it. Under the 

-7-

Appellate Case: 89-1154 Document: 01019438006 Date Filed: 07/06/1990 Page: 7 
circumstances, an in camera hearing wi ll best. accommodate the 

competing governmental and individual interests in t his case . In 

Gaines v. Hess, 662 F .2d 1364 (lOth Cir . 1 981 ), we affi rmed the 

use of an i n camera hearing to determine whe ther an informant's 

testimony would lend significant credence to a defendant 's 

de f ens e. Id. at 1369 ; see also United States v . Pe rez-Gomez , 638 

F.2d 215, 218 (lOth Cir. 1981); Garcia v. Un ited States, 37 3 F.2d 

806, 808 ( lO th Ci r . 1967) (using i n camera proceedings to 

determine inf ormant's participation and knowl edge ). 1 As t he 

Ga ines court noted : 

Such a procedure will limit the extent of the disclosure 

of the informant's identity and information, the reby 

protec ting the State's interest in avoiding unnecessary 

disclos ure , whi le a t the same time it will s afeguard 

defendant's right to the testimony of any accessible 

witness who may be significantly helpfu l t o his [or her] 

defense. 

Id. a t 1369 . 

Therefore , we r emand for the district c ou rt to hold in c amera 

hearings to determine whether the informant's t estimony i s 

relevant and whether disclosure is warranted. In addition , the 

dis tric t court shou l d a scertain the government's interests in 

1other circuits have approved the use of i n came ra proceedings t o 

a ssess the r elevance of an i nforma nt's testimony and to ensur e 

proper application of the Roviaro test. See United States v . 

Panton, 8 46 F .2d 13 35 , 1336-37 (11th Ci r . 1988) ; United Sta t es v . 

Sharp, 778 F. 2d 1182, 1187 (6th Cir. 1985) , cert. denied, 475 U.S. 

1030 (1986); Ordonez , 737 F .2d a t 80 9; United State s v. Cor tese , 

614 F.2d 91 4, 921 (3d Ci r . 1980); Fischer, 5 31 F.2d at 788; see 

a lso Price , 783 F . 2d at 1140 (recognizing the use o f i n c amera 

p roceed ings t o engage in t he Roviaro balancing test or to assess 

the harm of a wrongful failur e to disclose an informant' s 

i dentity); United States v. Tenorio-Angel, 7 56 F.2d 1505, 1509 n.7 

(11 th Cir. 1985) (discussing the requirement of i n camera 

proceedings only when the t rial cour t does not have e nough 

in f orma tion to determine if disclosur e of an informant ' s identity 

is essential). 

-8-

Appellate Case: 89-1154 Document: 01019438006 Date Filed: 07/06/1990 Page: 8 
resisting , disclosure and production. Fischer, 531 F.2d at 788. 

Although we leave to the discretion of the trial court how best to 

conduct these proceedings and assess the relevance of the 

informant's testimony, "the in camera hearings should be 

transcribed and sealed to permit .meaningful review while retaining 

limited disclosure." Gaines v. Hess, 662 F.2d at 1369. 

If the dist ric t court d ec ides the identity o f the 

- confidential informant should have been revealed under t he p roper 

standards, then the district court should vacate the sentence, and 

Mr. Moralez should be given a new trial with the benefit of the 

additional testimony. Id. at 1369 ; Panton , 846 F .2d at 1337 . If 

the district court concludes disclosure is not required, it shall 

make its findings in te rms which will protect the identity of the 

inf ormant. Gaines v. Hess, 662 F.2d at 13 69 n.4. The case should 

thereafter be returned to this c ou rt with no tice, and the parties 

may apply for a ddi tional briefing of the issues . The rema ining 

issues have been addressed in the dispositions of the compan ion 

cases of United States v . Sanchez, 89-1150 (lOth Cir. June 

1990 , unpublished), and United States v. Alamillo, 89 - 1141 (lOth 

Cir. June 1990, unpubl i shed). We adhere to the conclusions 

reached in thos e cases for disposition of the remaining issues 

here. 

The case is REMANDED to the district cou r t for further 

proceedings consistent wi t h this opinion. 

-9-

Appellate Case: 89-1154 Document: 01019438006 Date Filed: 07/06/1990 Page: 9