Opinion ID: 2982327
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Undisclosed Confidential Informant

Text: Next, Smotherman claims that the district court abused its discretion in denying disclosure of a confidential informant he believes “provide[d] the basis for the case against [him].” Yet, other than his speculation that the informant participated in drug transactions and “may disclose entrapment or other issues,” Smotherman fails to demonstrate the importance of the confidential informant to either the government’s trial strategy or his defense. Courts will order the disclosure of a confidential informant only upon a showing that it “is essential to a fair trial.” United States v. Moore, 954 F.2d 379, 381 (6th Cir. 1992). Because “[m]ere conjecture or supposition” will not do, United States v. Sharp, 778 F.2d 1182, 1187 (6th Cir. 1985) (quoting United States v. Gonzales, 606 F.2d 70, 75 (5th Cir. 1979)), the district court properly denied Smotherman’s motion. -5- Case No. 13-3645 United States v. Smotherman