Document: 353 U.S. 53 77 S.Ct. 623 1 L.Ed.2d 639 Albert ROVIARO, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES of America. No. 58. Argued Dec. 11, 1956. Decided March 25, 1957. Mr. Maurice J. Walsh, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner. James W. Kanpp, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice BURTON delivered the opinion Court. This case concerns a conviction violation Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act, as amended.1 The principal issue is whether United States District Court committed reversible error when it allowed Government to refuse disclose identity an undercover employee who had taken material part in bringing about possession certain drugs by accused, been present with accused at occurrence alleged crime, might be witness knowingly transported charged. For reasons hereafter stated, we hold that, under circumstances here present, this was error. 2 In 1955, Northern Illinois, petitioner, Roviaro, indicted on two counts federal grand jury. first count charged that August 12, 1954, he sold heroin one 'John Doe' 26 U.S.C. § 2554(a), U.S.C.A. 2554(a). second same date city 'did then there fraudulently receive, conceal, buy facilitate transportation concealment after importation . heroin, knowing imported into contrary law; Section 174, Title 21, Code.' 3 Before trial, petitioner moved bill particulars requesting, among other things, name, address occupation Doe.' objected ground John Doe informer his privileged. motion denied. 4 Petitioner, represented counsel, waived jury tried During trial Doe's transaction described government witnesses, counsel cross-examining them, sought repeatedly learn identity. court declined permit cross-examination not produced, identified, or otherwise made available. Petitioner found guilty both sentenced years' imprisonment fine $5 each count, sentences run concurrently.2 Appeals sustained conviction, holding concurrent sentence supported Count abused its discretion denying petitioner's requests disclosure 7 Cir., 229 F.2d 812. We granted certiorari, 351 936, 76 834, 100 L.Ed. 1464, order pass upon propriety nondisclosure informer's consider conflict Portomene v. States, 5 221 582; Conforti, 200 365; Sorrentino 9 163 627. At relied testimony narcotics agents, Durham Fields, Chicago police officers, Bryson Sims, whom knew sight. On night these four officers met 75th Street Prairie Avenue only Doe.3 Cadillac car were searched no found. secreted himself trunk Cadillac, taking him device which raise lid from inside. drove 70th Place St. Lawrence Avenue, followed Field Sims another. After hour's wait, 11 o'clock, arrived Pontiac, accompanied unidentified man. immediately entered front seat beside Doe. They proceeded circuitous route 74th near Champlain Avenue. Both cars trailed but driven managed follow Street. When came stop Street, stepped out onto sidewalk saw alight feet away. walk few nearby tree, pick up small package, return open right door mack if depositing package car, wave way. went recovered floor. He signaled come walked down street time see re-enter parked nearby, ride 6 Meanwhile, Bryson, concealed heard conversation between latter car. greet direct where drive. point, admonished pull over curb, cut motor, turn lights so lose 'tail.' told continue 'further down.' asked money owed him. advised brought 'three pieces time.' being ordered raised slightly. stopped, toward say, 'Here is,' 'I'll call you couple days.' Shortly thereafter Durham's signal emerged find contain three glassine envelopes containing white powder. A field test powder having indicated contained opium derivative, 12:30 a.m., arrested home took him, along Doe, headquarters. There confronted denied ever seen petitioner.4 Subsequent chemical analysis revealed heroin. I. 8 contends erred upholding withhold argues active participant illegal activity therefore, could identity, whereabouts, alive dead trial.5 does defend respect 1, sale attempts sustain judgment basis 2, charging narcotics.6 It may properly upheld since informer, case, real bearing charge therefore What usually referred privilege reality Government's persons furnish information violations law enforcement law. Scher 305 251, 254, 59 176, 83 151; re Quarles Butler, 158 532, 15 959, 39 1080; Vogel Gruaz, 110 311, 316, 14, 28 158. purpose furtherance protection public interest effective enforcement. recognizes obligation citizens communicate their knowledge commission crimes law-enforcement officials and, preserving anonymity, encourages them perform obligation. 10 scope limited underlying purpose. Thus, contents communication will tend reveal are privileged.7 Likewise, once has disclosed those would have cause resent communication, longer applicable.8 further limitation applicability arises fundamental requirements fairness. Where relevant helpful defense essential fair determination cause, must give way.9 situations require withholds information, dismiss action.10 Most cases involving arisen legality search without warrant communications claimed establish probable cause. required informant unless sufficient evidence apart confidential communication.11 12 Three recent Courts involved identical problem here—the helped set crime occurrence. stated such whenever accused's defense.12 13 believe fixed rule justifiable. calls balancing protecting flow against individual's prepare defense. Whether proper balance renders erroneous depend particular consideration charged, possible defenses, significance testimony, factors. II. 14 materiality determined reference offense relating count. language statute. mere possession; charges did 'fraudulently * *' While expressly mentioned, charge, viewed connection introduced closely related make highly material. true last subdivision (c) authorizes proved possessed narcotics, explains justifies possession.13 But statutory presumption reduce shift burden proof; merely places going forward defense.14 fact faced explaining justifying emphasizea vital need access any witness. Otherwise, become unduly heavy. 16 demonstrate So far knew, alone unobserved during crucial indicted. Unless constitutional take stand own defense, Petitioner's opportunity cross-examine Police Officer Federal Narcotics Agent hardly substitute examine man nearest transaction. criminal played prominent it. His entrapment. thrown doubt package. testified lack 'transported' tree desirability calling witness, least interviewing preparation matter rather than decide. 17 Finally, use while riding particularly emphasizes unfairness case. person, himself, controvert, emplain amplify Bryson's report important Contradiction amplification borne tended show 18 sole participant, position contradict witnesses. Moreover, before. conclude circumstances, prejudicial permitting face repeated demands disclosure.15 19 also presents claim arising controversy correctness entry, envelope effect Bryson. undisputed handed who, turn, Fields entry. discrepancy, obtain written Bureau concerning Although discrepancy dealt relatively minor reflected credibility However, view decision reached grounds, deem unnecessary determine denial request, even erroneous, 20 reversed remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. 21 Reversed remanded. 22 BLACK WHITTAKER 23 CLARK, dissenting. 24 regret I dissent Court, because am alone, reason unable convince majority unsoundness conclusion facts destructive narcotic laws. short self-confessed dope peddler refused name whose well known peddler. Yet reverses 'unfairness' failure fruitless gesture. my violence common understanding what just. 25 First, remember traffic poses most serious social problem. One read newspapers gauge enormity. No leads more directly offenses. difficult detect prove. Because pills readily packaged capsules containers, they easily concealed. can carried person body crevasses detection almost impossible. Enforcement is, 'stool pigeons' informants. Their long approval courts. To governments always policy teir identities. Experience teaches relaxed—even though dead—its effectiveness destroyed. Once drug traffickers quick retaliate. Dead men tell tales. old penalty tongue removal, visited Larunda, obsolete. Of course non-disclosure deprives either relaxed prosecution foregone. fully aware dilemma solves every day foregoing prosecutions many disclosure. 27 note opinion, supra, makes much officer informant, station, 'denied knowing, seen, petitioner.' submit setting. custody station kept overnight. There, custody, interrogated together occurrences leading arrests. questioned regard informant's answers station: 'Q. As fact, (the informant) said didn't he, Roviaro's presence? A. Do want entire conversation? 29 Isn't fact? No, sir. deny 30 Didn't say know him? Yes, sir; did.'1 31 context shows carrying pretense too arrested, involved, 'squealing.' attempted explain 'purpose' answering prevented counsel. 32 uncontradicted associated some time. Two June 22, enter Michigan Chicago. Another latter's 28, six weeks prior events question here. Further indebted telephoned several times 'at place,' again days arrest, arrest around miles. asserts 'emphasizes case.' limit officer's statements prove intimacy acquaintance informant. directed cache 'tail'; how reach telephone phone him; time,' indicating sales; approached car; finally returned I'll All admissiable available alive. proves beyond acquainted. record me fantastic. 33 all. mentioned single substantial necessary informer. mentions failed entrapment appears rejected suggestion court. should noted believed dead.2 Were necessity or, dead, death, done so.3 34 truth, hoped for, believed, If living favorable overcome casual reading paints piecture vainly engaging tactics searching defenses—shadowboxing baseless attempt get already hoping nowhere else encourage tactics. 35 light announced applied, i.e., 'court's erroneous. See 627.' 36 judge finding cannot successfully assert harmless guilt. general entitled support reasonable presumption. assume Furthermore, showing harmed nondisclosure—indeed anything. 37 now proof guilt 2. unstamped direct, uncontroverted possession, transportation, record. local policeman regular agent, hand pckage unstamped. third leave scene identification positive stands uncontradicted. Under 65 Stat. 767, prima facie rebut point statement soon arrest. him: 'Are (rap) yourself your connection?' replied wasting time—'There's asking anybody else. don't trouble. You got me. I've stood twice before again. Besides you've convict anyhow.' (Emphasis added.) this, 38 Feeling do seriously jeopardizes informers, absolute administration laws, today unessential undermines long-standing successful respectfully dissent. '(c) Whoever imports brings territory control jurisdiction, law, receives, conceals, buys, sells, manner facilitates concealment, in, conspires commit acts laws shall fined $2,000 imprisoned less five years. 'Whenever (§ 2(c)) defendant shown drug, deemed authorize satisfaction jury.' 768, 174. provided 'each' 'run concurrently.' argument construed administratively imposing fine. assume, deciding, imposed sentence. Durham, 'informer' 'special employee' agents follows: Well, (John Doe) anything acquaintanceship association (petitioner) man? 'A. Defendant never before.' following colloquy occurred Chester E. Emanuelson, counsel: 'Mr. Emanuelson: 'The (Doe's) matters pending. told—I myself—and former's name. Now, reason— Walsh: curtailed name? Would answer that? Any activities? Yes. From forward, no. Is occasion called testify? No.' later Emanue'son stated: '(A)s understand it, acting help pending.' Since exceed lawfully affirmed valid. Pinkerton 328 640, 641—642, n. 66 1180, 1181, 90 1489; Hirabayashi 320 81, 85, 63 1375, 1378, 87 1774; Abrams 250 616, 619, 40 17, 18, 1173; Claassen 142 140, 146—147, 169, 170, 966. Foltz Moore McCormack Lines, 189 537, 539—540; VIII Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed. 1940), 2374(1); A.L.I., Model Code (1942), Rule 230. cf. Batler, 532. 627, 629; Pihl Morris, 319 Mass. 577, 578—580, N.E.2d 804, 805—806; Commonwealth Congdon, 265 166, 174—175, 165 N.E. 467, 470; Regina Candy, cited M. & 175; 2374(2). contains intimations died trial. situation, whatever ceased exist, maintain channels shielding conduct. suggests court's indications contradicted headquarters factual alive, Nor See, e.g., Wilson 390; Centoamore State, 105 Neb. 452, 181 N.W. 182. Early decisions established judge. Disclosure compelled 'material ends justice. Richardson, F. 693, 694 (1863). also, Marks Beyfus, L.R. Q.B.D. 494, 498 (1890). page 'public forbids as, example, turns good faith.' Coplon, 185 629, 638; Andolschek, 503, 506. E.g., supra; Li Fat Tong., 152 650; Keown, F.Supp. 639. sales stand, selling grudge Fifth Circuit held Conforti counterfeit notes. Agents overheard arrangements meet transferred, received money. Seventh demand narcotics. go house overheard, turned agents. Ninth demonstrated Crosby Ga.App. 63, 82 S.E.2d 38. provision quoted full. Casey 276 413, 418, 48 373, 374, 72 632; Chiarelli, 192 528, 531; Stoppelli 183 391; Landsborough 168 486. all affirmative entitles ntitles acquittal. That contention, however, decided above. Thus largely refusal, exclusive reliance considered think denying, particulars, insofar requested address. evident indictment sale. Accordingly, thus requested, supply suffer dismissal objection subsequently stricken. substantially inadvertence failing object permitted stand. discloses court: Your Honor, actually: 11th State Defendant. person. 'By (Cross-examination agent Durham). ask Tebbil Holmes? contend prosecutor informer—isn't Holmes?' death certificate, File 1665, Dist. 16.10, file Vital Statistics, Cook County Clerk's Office, 130 N. Wells St., indicates Tevell Holmes, Sr., January 1955.

Category: 0