Opinion ID: 351945
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Disclosure of the Informant.

Text: 4 Before trial, appellant filed a motion for disclosure of the informant's identity, which sought in the alternative . . . to require the production of said informant for the Court's interrogation in camera . . . . In support of her motion, appellant filed an affidavit in which she stated that the informant was an eye and ear witness to the offense, and that the informant could testify as to the appellant's appearance during the period of the alleged offense, a factor which would lend credence to and corroborate her defense of duress and coercion by a co-defendant and Government witness, Willie Garles (a/k/a Jose Baez-Sanchez). 5 The trial judge after ascertaining the views of counsel ruled that no disclosure or in camera hearing was required. He did, however, state that he would reconsider his ruling if the evidence produced at trial necessitated such action. Apparently the trial judge concluded as the trial progressed that no disclosure or hearing was needed as his previous ruling remains unchanged. 6 Application of the informant's privilege must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1956): 7 We believe that no fixed rule with respect to disclosure is justifiable. The problem is one that calls for balancing the public interest in protecting the flow of information against the individual's right to prepare his defense. Whether a proper balance renders nondisclosure erroneous must depend on the particular circumstances of each case, taking into consideration the crime charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer's testimony, and other relevant factors. 353 U.S. at 62, 77 S.Ct. at 628. 8 Public policy forbids disclosure of the identity of an informer except where it is essential to the defense. Scher v. United States, 305 U.S. 251, 254, 59 S.Ct. 174, 83 L.Ed. 151 (1938); United States v. Toombs, 497 F.2d 88, 92 (5th Cir. 1974). 9 In this case, appellant contends that the informant could have provided testimony essential to her defense of duress. Indeed, the informant's privilege is somewhat limited, and disclosure will be required where it may be relevant and helpful to the defense of an accused, or is essential to a fair determination of a cause . . . . Roviaro, supra, 353 U.S. at 60-61, 77 S.Ct. at 628. In her affidavit in support of the Motion to Require Disclosure of Government Informer, the appellant stated as follows: 10 That the Government also acknowledges that said informant was an eye and ear witness to the offense herein charged in particular describing the appearance of the Defendant and co-Defendant, their location at the Hotel San Louis (sic), in Piedras Negras, Republic of Mexico, and of necessity overhearing conversations regarding the purpose of Co-Defendant Jose Baez-Sanchez. 11 That if said informant were produced by the Government to testify, said informant would exculpate the Defendant and testify that the Defendant did not participate in any such negotiations, conversations, nor indicate her acquiescence in same nor was she present at same, all making such informant's disclosure relevant and material for the defense herein. 12 The government's theory was that, as part of the conspiracy, appellant and the co-defendant were together at the hotel in Mexico for the purpose of ascertaining the reason for a delay in appearance of the aliens who were to be transported. Appellant asserts that she made the trip to Mexico under duress and that the informer's testimony concerning her appearance and demeanor at the hotel would have tended to support this duress defense. 13 The Mexican hotel occurrence was only one event in the overall scenario. During trial the testimony of both prosecution and defense witnesses established appellant as a participant in more central events. The value to the appellant of having the testimony of a person who saw her in the hotel in Mexico was slight. Under the balancing test established in Roviaro, and weighed against the public interest in maintaining sources of information, the refusal to require identity of the informer was not error. 14