FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT OCT 26, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 10858 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 0 0 0 7 2 - CR - J - 2 5 - HTS U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s E D E L J O R G E M A S O , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 26, 2007) B efo re W IL S O N , P R Y O R an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

E d e l J o r g e M a s o ap p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n f o rp o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to di s tr i but e a nd a i di ng a nd a be tt i ng the di s tr i but i on of c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . § 8 41 (a )( 1) and (b)(1) and 18 U . S . C . § 2 . S peci fi ca l l y, M as o argues that the di s tr i c tc our t( 1) vi ol a t e d hi s S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o a publ i c tr i a l by h o ld in g a n in c a m e r a h e a r in g to d e te r m in e if a p r in c ip a l g o v e rn m e n t w itn e s s c o u ld t e s t i f y us i ng a ps e udony m a nd ul t i m a t e l y a l l ow i ng the w i tne s s t o do s o; a nd ( 2) vi ol a t e d hi s S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o c onf r ontw i tne s s e s by a l l ow i ng the pr i nc i pa l gove rnm e ntw i tne s s t o t e s t i f y us i ng a ps e udony m . F orthe r e a s ons d is c u s s e d b e lo w , w e a f

f ir m . B e f or e M a s o’ s tr i a l , the gove rnm e nts ubm i tt e d am ot i on t o a l l ow the c onf i de nt i a l w i tne s s ( “ C W ” ) t o t e s t i f y us i ng a ps e udony m . T he gove rnm e nt e xpl a i ne d tha tthe C W w a s a pr of e s s i ona l unde r c ove ri nf

or m a ntf orthe D rug E nf or c e m e ntA ge nc y ( “ D E A ” ) a nd ha d be e n thr e a t e ne d i n the pa s ti n c onne c t i on w i th h i s w ork as aD E A i nform ant . T he go vernm enti nd i ca t ed thati thad i nform ed M as o o f the C W ’ s r ea l nam e. T he go vernm entar gu ed thatpu bl i c di sc l osure, h o w e v e r , o f

th e C W ’s r e a l n a m e w o u ld e n d a n g e rth e C W a n d h is f a m ily a n d w o u ld co m p ro m ise o n g o in g D E A in v es ti g atio n s. M as o o b jected to th e g o v er n m en t’ s m o tio n , s u g g e s tin g th a t th e u s e o f a p s e u d o n y m w o u ld v io la te h is r ig h t to confront at i on and t he pu bl i c’ s i nt er es ti n an o pen t ri al . T he di stri ctcourti nd i ca t ed3

thati tw ou l d h ol d an i n cam er a hea ri ng t o d et erm i ne i f r evea l i ng the C W ’ s r ea l na m e i n ope n c our tpos e d a n unr e a s ona bl e r i s k. M a s o obj e c t e d t o hol di ng the hear i ng i n cam er a. T he di stri ctcourtov errul ed thi s obj ec t i on and excl ud ed e v e ry o n e f

r o m th e c o u r tr o o m s a v e th o s e in v o lv e d in th e tr ia l. A tth e i n cam era h eari n g , th e C W t est i fi ed as fo l l o w s. H e h ad w o rk ed as a C W f o rth e D E A f

o r6 y e a r s a n d in 3 0 in v e s tig a tio n s , s o m e o f w h ic h le d to prosec ut i on s a nd som e of w hi ch w er e ong oi ng . A pp roxi m at el y one m on th b ef ore th e h e a r in g , s o m e o n e ap p r o a c h e d th e C W ’s f a th e ra n d w a rn e d th a t th e C W s h o u ld

“ w a t c h [ hi s ] ba c k” a nd tha tthe C W ’ s f a m i l y m i ght“ ge thur t . ” A l s o, appr oxi m a t e l y thr e e of

f ourm onths be f

or e the he a r i ng, s om e one appr oa c he d the C W ’ s f a the r - i n- l a w a nd othe rf a m i l y m e m be r s a ta f

a m i l y r e uni on i n W a s hi ngt on st at e a nd offe re d m on ey for api cture a nd / or the l ocat i on of the C W . F urtherm ore, a c o u p le o f

y e a r s b e f

o r e th e h e a r in g , in a n o th e rs ta te , s o m e o n e h ir e d a h it m a n to f i nd a nd ki l l the C W . T hi s thr e a ton hi s l i f e l e d the D E A t o r e l oc a t e the C W . T he C W a l s o ha d be e n r e l oc a t e d one othe rt i m e s i nc e the n. O n c r os s - e xa m i na t i on, the C W adm i tt ed thathi s f

ather w as i n M exi co atthe t i m e thatthe threa tw as c o mmu n i c a t e d a n d th a tth e th r e a td i d n o ts t e m f r o m th e i n s t a n tc a s e b u tf r o m a c a s e outof

W a s hi ngt on s t a t e . T he di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d the gove rnm e nt ’ s m ot i on, i ns truc t e d the pa r t i e s t o r e f e rt o the C W a s “ J a c k M e ne nde z , ” a nd f orba de a nyPer Maso’s request, the district c ourt did not inform the jury that the CW was testifying 1 using a pseudony

m. 4 cr oss- exam i nat i on i nt o h i s true i dent i ty. A cc ordi ng l y, the C W t es t i fi ed as “ Ja ck M e n e n d e z .” 1 S p e c i f i c a l l y , th e C W t e s t i f

i e d a s f o l l o ws . Un d e rth e s u p e r v i s i o n o f th e DE A, h e a rr a n g e d to m e e t o n e o f M a s o ’s c o d e f

e n d a n ts in a F lo r id a s to r e p a r k in g lo t to pur c ha s e c oc a i ne . A f

t e rthe C W a rr i ve d a tthe pa r ki ng l ota nd s how e d the c o d e f e n d a n t th a t h e h a d th e r e q u is ite m o n e y , th e c o d e f e n d a n t c a lle d tw o o f

h is a c qua i nt a nc e s t o de l i ve rthe c oc a i ne t o the s t or e pa r ki ng l ot . M a s o w a s one of th ese acq u ai n t an ces. M aso d ro v e th e car i n w h i ch th e acq u ai n t an ces arrived . M aso a ls o a s k e d th e C W if

h e h a d th e r e q u is ite m o n e y a n d a s k e d th e c o d e f e n d a n t if M a s o s houl d c ountthe m one y i n hi s c a rbe f or e ha ndi ng ove rthe c oc a i ne . T he othe ra c qua i nt a nc e c a rr i e d the c oc a i ne on hi s pe r s on. O n c r os s - e xa m i na t i on, the CW a d mi tt e d th a th e w a s p a i d f o rh i s w o r k i n th e i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f M a s o . Th e CW al so adm i tt ed thathe di d n otbecom e aC W for the D E A un t i l af t erhe w as arre st ed for posse ss i ng hal f apo un d o f m etham ph et am i ne and t hathi s c harge fr om that arre stw as di sm i ss ed i n exchang e f or hi s c oo pera t i on . T he C W further a dm i tt ed tha tthe por t i on of

the c onve r s a t i on i n w hi c h M a s o a s ke d i f he s houl d c ountthe C W ’ s m one y i n M a s o’ s truc k w a s notr e c or de d be c a us e of a n appa r e ntm a l f

unc t i on w ith h is e q u ip m e n t.Th eg ov e rnment h a s argue d th at th eri ght to a pu bli c trial do e s n ot e xten d tothein 2 c amera he aringin q

ue sti on or theus eof

a ps eudony

m. Theg ov e rnment a

rgue s th at th ein camera he aringwas a

nalog ous to a benc h conferenc e, to which the right nor mally does not extend, and mere ly

covered a matter collateral to the ultimate issue of Ma so’s guilt. The g overnment argues that the use of a pseudony

m did not constitute a c losure, as no onewas excluded from the c ourtroom. We do not need to re solve these issues for purposes of theinstant appeal. 5 I . R i gh t t o a P u b l i c T r i al A vi ol at i on of the ri gh tt o a pu bl i c tri al const i tut es structural error, or a “d e f e c t a f f e c tin g th e f

r a m e w o r k w ith in w h ic h th e tr ia l p r o c e e d s , r a th e rth a n s im p ly a n e rr o rin th e tr ia l p r o c e s s its e lf .” J u d d v . H a le y , 2 5 0 F .3 d 1 3 0 8 , 1 3 1 4 - 1 3 1 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . T h e r e f

o r e , s u c h a v io la tio n is n o t s u b je c t to a h a r m le s s e rr o ra n a ly s is . I d. R a the r , “ onc e a pe t i t i one rde m ons tr a t e s a vi ol a t i on of hi s S i xth A m e ndm e nt r i ghtt o a publ i c tr i a l , he ne e d nots how tha tthe vi ol a t i on pr e j udi c e d hi m i n a ny w ay. T h e m ere d em o n strat i o n th ath i s ri g h tt o a p u b l i c tri al w as v i o l at ed en t i t l es a p e titio n e rto r e lie f

.” I d . T he S i xth A m e ndm e ntpr ovi de s tha t , “ [ i ] n a l l c r i m i na l pr os e c ut i ons , the ac cuse d shal l enj oy the ri gh tt o a . . . pu bl i c tri al . . . . ” U . S . C on st . am end. V I. 2 T he S upr e m e C our tha s he l d, how e ve r , tha t“ the r i ghtt o a n ope n tr i a l m a y gi ve w a y i n c e r t a i n c a s e s t o othe rr i ght s ori nt e r e s t s , s uc h a s the de f e nda nt ’ s r i ghtt o a f a i rtr i a l orthe gove rnm e nt ’ s i nt e r e s ti n i nhi bi t i ng di s c l os ur e of s e ns i t i ve i nf or m a t i on. ” W a l l e rv. G e or gi a , 467 U . S . 39, 45, 104 S . C t . 2210, 2215, 81 L .E d .2 d 3 1 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t c a u tio n e d th a t “[ s ]u c h c ir c u m s ta n c e s w ill6

b e r a r e , h o w e v e r , a n d th e b a la n c e o f in te r e s ts m u s t b e s tru c k w ith s p e c ia l c a r e .” I d . Indeed, i n W al l er , the S up re m e C ou rtes t abl i shed the fol l ow i ng t es tt o g ov ern co u rtro o m cl o su res: T he pa r ty s e e ki ng t o c l os e the he a r i ng m us ta dva nc e a n ove rr i di ng i nt er es tthati s l i kel y t o b e pre j ud i ce d, the cl osure m ustbe no broader than n ec es sa ry t o p rot ec tthati nt er es t , the tri al courtm ustconsi der r e a s ona bl e a l t e rna t i ve s t o c l os i ng the pr oc e e di ng, a nd i tm us tm a ke fi nd i ng s a dequ at e t o sup po rtthe cl osure. W a lle r , 4 6 7 U .S . a t 4 8 , 1 0 4 S .C t. a t 2 2 1 6 . T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notvi ol a t e M a s o’ s r i ghtt o a publ i c tr i a l by c onduc t i ng a n i n c a m e r a , r a the rtha n ope n, he a r i ng ora l l ow i ng the C W t o t e s t i f y us i ng a ps e udony m . S e e U . S . C ons t . a m e nd. V I . R e ga r di ng the i n c a m e r a he a r i ng, the c i r c um s t a nc e s s urr oundi ng the c l os ur e s a t i s f i e d the W a l l e rt e s t . S e e W a l l e r , 467 U . S . at48 , 10 4 S . C t . at22 16 . S peci fi ca l l y, the C W advanced an i nt er es tthatw as m o r e im p o r ta n t th a n M a s o ’s in te r e s t in a n o p e n h e a r in g , n a m e ly h is a n d h is f a mi l y ’ s s a f

e ty a n d h i s r o l e i n o n g o i n g D EA i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . To th i s e n d , th e CW t es t i fi ed that , w i thi n the ye arbefore M as o’ s tri al , som eone had com m un i ca t ed thr e a t s on the C W a nd hi s f a m i l y t o the C W ’ s f

a the ra nd ha d of

f e r e d t o pa y the C W ’ s f a m i l y m one y i n e xc ha nge f ori nf or m a t i on on hi s the n- c ur r e nti de nt i ty a nd wh e r e a b o u t s . M a s o a l s o t e s t i f i e d th a th e wa s i n v o l v e d i n o n g o i n g DEA in v e s tig a tio n s . T h e C W ’s in te r e s t in p r o te c tin g h im s e lf a n d h is f a m ily a n d h is r o le7

i n o ng oi ng D E A i nv es t i gat i on s w ou l d b e pre j ud i ce d i f the evi dent i ary hea ri ng w er e o p e n , in th a t a p u b lic r e c o r d w o u ld b e m a d e o f f e r in g c lu e s a s to h is r e a l id e n tity . A l s o, c l os i ng the e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng w a s the l e a s tr e s tr i c t i ve m e thod t o pr ot e c t i ng the C W ’ s i nt e r e s t s . F i na l l y , the a r gum e nt s a nd di s c us s i ons both be f or e a nd dur i ng the cl osed heari ng prov i ded adequ at e i nform at i on for app el l at e r evi ew , as they p ro v id ed su ff

icien t i n fo rm atio n ab o u t th e C W ’s fe ar s f o r h is an d h is fa m il y’s s a f e ty a n d in te r e s t in m a in ta in in g s e c r e c y a s a C W . R e ga r di ng the us e of

a ps e udony m , the c i r c um s t a nc e s s urr oundi ng the cl osure a l so sa t i sf

i ed the W al l ert es t . S ee i d. S peci fi ca l l y, the C W t es t i fi ed t o an o v e rr id in g in te r e s t in n o t r e v e a lin g h is tru e n a m e to th e p u b lic , a s d is c u s s e d a b o v e . T he C W ’ s i nt e r e s ti n pr ot e c t i ng hi m s e l f a nd hi s f a m i l y a nd hi s r ol e i n ongoi ng D E A i nve s t i ga t i ons w oul d be pr e j udi c e d i f

hi s na m e , e vi de nc e of

hi s c ont i nui ng r ol e a s a C W f

orthe D E A , a nd w he r e a bout s w e r e m a de a publ i c r e c or d. A l s o, a l l ow i ng the C W t o us e a ps e udony m w a s the l e a s tr e s tr i c t i ve m e thod t o pr ot e c t i ng th e C W ’s in te r e s ts . F in a lly , a s d is c u s s e d a b o v e , th e r e c o r d p r o v id e d a d e q u a te f i ndi ngs f orappe l l a t e r e vi e w . A c c or di ngl y , a s both of the c l os ur e s s a t i s f

i e d the W a lle rte s t f

o rju s tif y in g a c o u r tr o o m c lo s u r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t v io la te M a s o’ s r i ghtt o a publ i c tr i a l i n c onduc t i ng a n i n c a m e r a he a r i ng a nd a l l ow i ng the C W to te s tif

y u s in g a p s e u d o n y m . T h e r e f o r e , w e a f

f ir m M a s o ’s c o n v ic tio n a s toIn Smith, the principal witness ag ainst the defendant testified usinga pseudony m. 390 3 U. S. at 13 0, 88 S.Ct . at 74 9. Although d e fens ec ouns e l pre vious ly had repre sente d th ewi tne ss, 8 th is is s u e . II . R i gh t t o C on fr on t W i tn es se s W e r e vi e w a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s r e s tr i c t i on of a de f e nda nt ’ s r i ghtt o c onf

r ont w i tne s s e s f

ora bus e of

di s c r e t i on. S e e A l f

or d v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 282 U . S . 687, 694, 51 S . C t . 218, 220, 75 L . E d. 624 ( 1931) . W e w i l l not , how e ve r , r e vi e w the vi ol a t i on f

orha r m l e s s e rr or . S e e S m i th v. S t a t e of I l l i noi s , 390 U . S . 129, 131, 88 S . C t . 748, 750, 19 L . E d. 2d 956 ( 1968) . R a the r , “ ( a ) de ni a l of c r os s - e xa m i na t i on w i thoutw a i ve r. . . w oul d be c ons t i tut i ona l e rr orof the f i r s tm a gni tude a nd no a m o u n t o f

s h o w in g o f

w a n t o f p r e ju d ic e w o u ld c u r e it.” I d . T he S i xth A m endm entC on fr on t at i on C l ause prov i des that , “ [i ] n al l cr i m i nal pr os e c ut i ons , the a c c us e d s ha l l e nj oy the r i ght. . . t o be c onf r ont e d w i th the w i tne s s e s a ga i ns thi m . ” U . S . C ons t . a m e nd. V I . I ti s a xi om a t i c tha tthe C on fr on t at i on C l ause af fords adefe nd antthe ri gh tt o cross exam i ne w i tness es . S ee P oi nt e rv. T e xa s , 380 U . S . 400, 400- 01, 85 S . C t . 1065, 1066, 13 L . E d. 2d 923 (1 9 6 5 ). M o reo v er, th e S u p rem e C o u rth as h el d th atth e C o n fro n t at i o n C l au se pr ot e c t s a de f

e nda ntf r om r e s tr i c t i ons on the s c ope of hi s c r os s - e xa m i na t i on, spec i fi ca l l y r egar di ng the w i tness ’ s i dent i ty. S m i th, 39 0 U . S . at13 0-33 , 88 S . C t . at 749- 51. 3the Supreme Court noted that the rec ord wa s devoid of any indication that defense counse l knew thewi tne ss’ s re al na

meor re side nc e . I d. at 13 1 n .5 , 8 8 S. Ct. at 74 9. In h oldingthat th is cro ssexamining scenario deprived the de fenda nt of his confrontation right, the Supreme Court re a so ne d th at when the credibility

of a w itness is in i ssue, the ver y startingpoint in exposing falseho od and bring ingout th etr

uth through c ro ss- e xaminatio n mu st n e c e ssa ri ly be to ask the w itness who he is and where helives. The witness’ na me and addre ss open countless avenues of in-c ourt examination and out-of-c ourt inv e sti g atio n. To fo rb id t

hismos t r udimenta ry inq uir y at th ethre sh old

is eff ectively to emasculate the right of cross- examination it self. I d. at 131, 88 S.Ct. at 750 (quotations omi tted). 9 T he i s s ue pr e s e nt e d by the i ns t a ntc a s e , na m e l y w he the rthe C onf r ont a t i on C l ause w as vi ol at ed w hen t he go vernm entre veal ed the pri nci pal w i tness ’ s r ea l n a m e to th e d e f

e n d a n t in a d v a n c e o f

tr ia l b u t th e w itn e s s r e f u s e d to d iv u lg e h is i dent i ty i n o pen cou rt , i s am att erof fi rs ti m pres si on t o thi s C ou rt . W e not e, ho w ever , thatou r pre dece ss or has c on si dere d an anal og ou s s i tuat i on and t hat c e r t a i n of

ours i s t e rc i r c ui t s ha ve c ons i de r e d the e xa c ts i tua t i on. I n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A l s t on, 460 F . 2d 48, 51- 52 ( 5th C i r . 1972) , our pr e de c e s s orc ons i de r e d a c a s e i n w hi c h the pr i nc i pa l w i tne s s a ga i ns tthe de f e nda nt r e f u s e d to d iv u lg e h is h o m e a d d r e s s , c itin g c o n c e rn s f o rh is a n d h is f

a m ily ’s s a f

e ty . O u r p red ecesso r h el d th atth ere w as n o “ p er se req u i rem en tth ata w i tn ess’ ad d ress be di vul ge d upon de m a nd. ” I d. R a the r , ourpr e de c e s s orr e c ogni z e d a n e xc e pt i on f or“ i ns t a nc e s i n w hi c h the phy s i c a l s a f e ty of the w i tne s s orhi s f

a m i l y m i ghtbe e nda nge r e d by di s c l os ur e . ” I d. O urpr e de c e s s orc onc l ude d tha t , be c a us e the10

w i tness i n q uest i on (1) had gi ven eno ug h i nform at i on t o “ pl ac e [ hi m ] i n h i s proper s e tt i ng” a nd t o a l l ow e f

f e c t i ve c r os s - e xa m i na t i on a nd ( 2) ha d a r e a s ona bl e f e a rf or h is a n d h is f

a m ily ’s s a f

e ty , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in sust ai ni ng the go vernm ent ’ s obj ec t i on t o exam i nat i on of hi s hom e a dd re ss . Id. at 5 2 . I n S i e gf

r i e dtv. F a i r , 982 F . 2d 14, 18- 19 ( 1s tC i r . 1992) ( pe r s ua s i ve a uthor i ty ) , the F i r s tC i r c ui the l d tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tha d notvi ol a t e d the de f e nda nt ’ s r i ghtt o c onf

r ont a t i on by a l l ow i ng a w i tne s s t o t e s t i f y us i ng a ps e udony m a ta pr oba bl e c a us e he a r i ng be c a us e the w i tne s s a l r e a dy ha d be e n us i ng the ps e udony m a s a n a l i a s out s i de of the c our tr oom a nd be c a us e the de f e nda nt kn ew the w i tness ’ re al nam e, perf orm ed an i nv es t i gat i on , and p re se nt ed i m pe a c hm e nte vi de nc e . I n C l a r k v. R i c ke tt s , 958 F . 2d 851, 855 ( 9th C i r . 1991) (per suas i ve autho ri ty) , the N i nth C i rc ui thel d thatthe di stri ctcourthad n otvi ol at ed the C on fr on t at i on C l ause by al l ow i ng a w i tness t o t es t i fy w i tho utre veal i ng hi s r ea l nam e, re as on i ng that“ there i s no absol ut e r i gh tof an acc used t o h ave aj ury hea r a w i tne s s ’ s true na m e ” a nd tha tthe de f e nda ntkne w the w i tne s s ’ r e a l na m e a nd c o u ld , th e r e f

o r e , c o n d u c t a n o u t- o f

- c o u r t in v e s tig a tio n a n d in - c o u r t e x a m in a tio n . T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notvi ol a t e M a s o’ s r i ghtt o c onf r ontw i tne s s e s by a l l ow i ng the C W t o t e s t i f y us i ng a ps e udony m . S e e U . S . C ons t . a m e nd. V I . O urSee B onner v. Pricha rd, 661 F .2d 1206, 1209 (11 Cir. 1981) (en ba nc) ( adoptingas 4 th binding prece dent in the Eleventh Circuit, all decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit announce d prior to October 1, 1981). 11 pr e de c e s s orha s appr ove d a r e s tr i c t i on on r e ve a l i ng pot e nt i a l l y s e ns i t i ve in f o r m a tio n w h e n th e w itn e s s d e m o n s tr a te d a r e a s o n a b le f e a rf o rh is a n d h is f a m i l y ’ s s a f

e ty . S e e A l s t on, 460 F . 2d a t51- 52. A l s o, w e a r e pe r s ua de d by our 4 si st erci rc ui t s’ approv al s of r es tri ct i on s on revea l i ng a w i tness ’ s r ea l nam e w hen th e g o v e rn m e n t p r e v io u s ly h a d in f o r m e d th e d e f

e n d a n t o f th e w itn e s s ’s r e a l n a m e . S e e S i e gf

r i e dt , 982 F . 2d a t18- 19 ( pe r s ua s i ve a uthor i ty ) ; C l a r k, 958 F . 2d a t855 ( pe r s ua s i ve a uthor i ty ) . H e r e , the C W de m ons tr a t e d a r e a s ona bl e f e a rf orhi s a nd h is f a m ily ’s s a f

e ty , e x p la in in g th a t s o m e o n e h a d c o m m u n ic a te d a th r e a t o n h im a n d h is f a m ily to h is f

a th e rin M e x ic o , s o m e o n e h a d ap p r o a c h e d h is f a m ily in W a s hi ngt on s t a t e f

ori nf or m a t i on on hi s the n- c urr e nti de nt i ty a nd w he r e a bout s , a nd s om e one ha d hi r e d a hi tm a n t o ki l l hi m . S e e A l s t on, 460 F . 2d a t51- 52. A l s o, the g o v ern m en trev eal ed th e C W ’ s real n am e t o M aso i n ad v an ce o f h i s tri al , an d M aso e f f e c t i ve l y e xpl or e d the C W ’ s pa s ton c r os s - e xa m i na t i on, a s ki ng que s t i ons a bout hi s c om pensat i on for w orki ng as a D E A and h i s ow n p ri or drug ac t i vi ty. S ee S i e gf r i e dt , 982 F . 2d a t18- 19 ( pe r s ua s i ve a uthor i ty ) ; C l a r k, 958 F . 2d a t855 ( pe r s ua s i ve a uthor i ty ) . A c c or di ngl y , a s the C W e s t a bl i s he d a r e a s ona bl e f e a rf or h is a n d h is f

a m ily ’s s a f

e ty a n d a s th e g o v e rn m e n t d is c lo s e d th e C W ’s r e a l n a m e to12

M a s o i n a dva nc e of

tr i a l , s uc h tha tM a s o’ s a bi l i ty t o pr e pa r e hi s de f e ns e w a s not ha m pe r e d, the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notvi ol a t e M a s o’ s r i ghtt o c onf r ontw i tne s s e s by allo w in g th e C W to testify u sin g a p se u d o n ym . T h er ef o re , w e a ff

irm M as o ’s c onvi c t i on. AF F I RME D.