Opinion ID: 553838
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The confidential informant

Text: 17 Both Martinez and Vidal join in arguing that they were denied their right to a fair trial by the government's refusal to disclose the identity of a confidential informant. Specifically, they contend that the government informant had witnessed most of the transactions which led to their arrests and could therefore have provided important exculpatory evidence that would have significantly corroborated the theories they presented in their defense. Martinez and Vidal additionally argue that the informant is the only witness who could have identified which of the suspects were actually involved in the drug operation and that, had the informant been called, he would have testified that he had never seen either appellant on or about the premises. The better part of reason, however, is not on their side. 18 The success of their argument was premised, of course, on the applicability of the so called informant's privilege to the facts of this case. Courts have long recognized the government's qualified privilege to disclose the identity of informants. Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 59, 77 S.Ct. 623, 627, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1956); United States v. Hemmer, 729 F.2d 10, 15 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1218, 104 S.Ct. 2666, 81 L.Ed.2d 371 (1984). As Roviaro and its progeny make clear, however, said privilege, though well-established, is by no means absolute. In the past we have held that disclosure must be forthcoming if the government informant was the sole participant, other than the accused, in the transaction charged, or was the only witness in a position to amplify or contradict the testimony of government witnesses. United States v. Bibbey, 735 F.2d 619, 621 (1st Cir.1984), quoting from Roviaro, 353 U.S. at 64, 77 S.Ct. at 629. However, when the government informant is not an actual participant or a witness to the offense, disclosure is required only in those exceptional cases where the defendant can point to some concrete circumstance that might justify overriding both the public interest in encouraging the flow of information, and the informant's private interest in his or her own safety. Hemmer, 729 F.2d at 15; United States v. Estrella, 567 F.2d 1151, 1153 (1st Cir.1977). Mere speculation as to the usefulness of the informant's testimony, it must be emphasized, is insufficient to justify disclosure of his or her identity, so defendants have an obligation to provide at least some explanation of how the informant's testimony would have supported their alleged defenses. United States v. Giry, 818 F.2d 120, 130 (1st Cir.1987); Hemmer, 729 F.2d at 15. Moreover, our cases have also established that where the informant is a mere tipster, a conduit rather than a principal or active participant in the enterprise, disclosure is not required, even in those instances where the informant was present during the commission of the offense. Giry, 818 F.2d at 130. In sum, we believe we fairly state the point when we say that the privilege need only give way when disclosure of the informant's identity would be vital to a fair trial. 19 There can be no question that the government informant was not present at the subject apartment on the day of the arrests. He was therefore not a participant, let alone the sole participant other than the accused, in the offenses charged. Moreover, since he was not a witness to the events of May 2, he was not in a position to amplify, contradict, or clear up any inconsistencies in the government witnesses' testimony or any controversies which might have arisen between the prosecution's account of the facts and the version presented in appellants' defense. Thus, as to the events of May 2, 1989, the only events which need concern us in this case, the informant was a mere tipster, making disclosure mandatory only if a showing of exceptional circumstances had been made. None was. Appellants' claim is limited to alleging that the informant could have provided important exculpatory evidence which would have corroborated the theories presented in their defense, but we were never told which facts their argument referred to or how such corroboration would have taken place. That the informant witnessed prior drug transactions in the subject apartment and could have testified that he had not seen either appellant participate in them, though possible, is only of tangential relevance at best, since the fact of the matter is that appellants were prosecuted for possessing and conspiring to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances on the sole basis of the events of May 2. Lack of presence at the premises prior to May 2 would not have given rise to an inference of non-involvement on the day of the arrests. In short, then, a fair trial did not necessitate the presence of the government informant.