Opinion ID: 1035557
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: CS1 and CS2’s Testimony Under Aliases

Text: Here, CS1 and CS2 testified at trial and were subjected to crossexamination. While they testified under aliases, defense counsel were provided with their “true names” and significant background information. The only restrictions were that defense counsel could not use the informants’ actual names in open court, and did not have access to the informants’ dates of birth and social security numbers. Balancing the public interest in protecting the flow of information against the defendants’ confrontation rights, we conclude that the limited use of pseudonyms did not violate the Confrontation Clause in this case. Defense counsel were provided with the true names of the witnesses, information about their backgrounds, their criminal records, the amount of compensation they received for their DEA cooperation, and trial testimony they gave in previous cases. And the witnesses were not strangers; Salas had known them for years. The only information not disclosed to defense counsel was the witnesses’ dates of birth and social security numbers. We fail to see how the non-disclosure of such information, in light of the information provided, “frustrated meaningful investigation into their respective backgrounds.” The defendants do not identify what additional background information they sought to uncover. Nor do they provide apposite authority supporting their position that the non-disclosure of a witness’s date of birth and social security number violates the Confrontation Clause; indeed, the only authority they cite is a case in which the true name of a pseudonymous government witness was not disclosed to the defense, United States v. Fuentes, 988 F. Supp. 861 (E.D. Pa. 1997), a different situation than the one presented here. In fact, the situation here is strikingly similar to the 21 Case: 11-41376 Document: 00512323905 Page: 22 Date Filed: 07/29/2013 Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392 situations in Celis and Maso: in all three cases, the pseudonymous witnesses were informants for the DEA who feared reprisal from drug trafficking organizations. The principal difference is that the government here did not offer specific evidence that the witnesses had a legitimate fear of reprisal and the court did not make any findings on this issue. But the defendants did not raise a Roviaro objection to the district court, and we are aware of no case holding that a district court has the obligation to consider the Confrontation Clause implications of pseudonymous testimony sua sponte. Because the defendants raised a discovery objection, but not a confrontation objection, to the district court’s ruling allowing the confidential informants to testify under aliases, our review is for plain error. Under the circumstances, we perceive no plain error.