Opinion ID: 2973072
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Disclosure of Confidential Informants

Text: -4- Nos. 04-5677/04-5704/04-5678 United States v. Williams Young argues that the district court erred by denying his pretrial request for the disclosure of the identities of confidential informants that the government relied upon in its affidavit supporting a request for authorization of electronic surveillance. Because defendant did not renew his objection at trial, the standard of review is plain error. See United States v. Kelly, 204 F.3d 652, 655 (6th Cir. 2000) (motion in limine is insufficient to preserve objection absent contemporaneous objection); Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). Plain error involves a legal error that is obvious and that affects substantial rights. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-34 (1993). Defendant has the burden of showing prejudice. Id. at 734. When deciding whether a defendant is entitled to disclosure of the identities of confidential informants, the trial court must “balanc[e] the public interest in protecting the flow of information against the individual’s right to prepare his defense.” United States v. Moore, 954 F.2d 379, 381 (6th Cir. 1992) (quoting Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 62 (1957)). The defendant must demonstrate that disclosure is essential to a fair trial. Id. While Young raises the possibility of having private detectives investigate the informants, he fails to demonstrate how not disclosing the informants affected the outcome of the proceedings. Accordingly, we decline to reverse the denial of disclosure of the identities of the confidential informants.