Opinion ID: 611873
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Disclosure of identity of confidential informant

Text: 25 Detective Enoch White testified that he first met William Metz when introduced to Metz by a confidential informant on January 27, 1991. On that day, White testified that he purchased three bags of marijuana from Metz and a juvenile at Metz' residence. As background for this testimony, White also testified regarding a controlled buy of marijuana which had taken place at Metz' residence on January 26, 1991 through use of the confidential informant. However, these two marijuana transactions were not charged in the indictment; Metz was charged in connection with two cocaine offenses occurring on February 6, 1991. 26 During White's testimony, Metz' counsel requested that the government disclose the identity of the confidential informant. The government objected, contending that the informant was working with law enforcement agencies on other investigations which would be jeopardized. In addition, out of the jury's presence, the government presented the testimony of Special Agent Ford, who stated that disclosure of the informant's identity would jeopardize not only the informant's safety, but also the safety of officers working on investigations. The district court ruled that the informant's identity need not be disclosed. 27 On appeal, Metz contends that the district court should have required the disclosure of the identity of the confidential informant because (1) the informant's testimony would support the defense of entrapment, and (2) the informant's testimony could have been used to impeach the testimony of law enforcement personnel, including, presumably, the testimony of Detective White. 28 The Supreme Court has recognized that the government has a privilege not to disclose the identity of persons who furnish information regarding violations of the law. Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957). However, this privilege is limited [w]here the disclosure of an informer's identity, or of the contents of his communication, is relevant and helpful to the defense of an accused, or is essential to a fair determination of a cause[.] Id. at 60-61. There is no fixed rule which establishes when an informant's identity must be disclosed. Rather, 29 [t]he 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. 30 Id. at 62. This Court has held that where the district court undertakes the balancing required by Roviaro, our review is limited to determining whether the district court committed an abuse of discretion which resulted in substantial prejudice. United States v. Straughter, 950 F.2d 1223, 1232 (6th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1505 (1992). 31 Disclosure of an informant's identity has been required when the informer was an eyewitness to, and in fact a participant in, the exchange of contraband by the defendant seller. See United States v. Barnett, 418 F.2d 309, 311-12 (6th Cir.1969) (informant accompanied government agent to purchase whiskey); United States v. Lloyd, 400 F.2d 414, 415-16 (6th Cir.1968) (informant, followed by officers, purchased illegal drugs). In this case, however, the marijuana transactions in which the informant participated were not charged in the indictment, but were merely established in order to show identity, i.e., that the informant had introduced Detective White to Metz. [D]isclosure has usually been denied when the informer was not a participant, but was a mere tipster or introducer. United States v. Sharp, 778 F.2d 1182, 1186 n. 2 (6th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1030 (1986). 32 Where the defendant claims entrapment, he must present some evidence of entrapment before the government is called upon to disclose the identity of an informant. Id. at 1187. Here, Metz' entrapment defense was based on his own uncontradicted testimony as to several phone calls which he received from the confidential informant. As the district court properly noted, Metz' entrapment defense was weak. See Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 66 (1988) (noting that evidence that government agents merely offered an opportunity for the commission of the crime would be insufficient to warrant an entrapment instruction). 2 Assuming that Metz had presented stronger evidence in support of an entrapment defense, however, the government met its burden of supporting its contention that the informant's identity should not be disclosed, by presenting evidence (1) that the informant was involved in ongoing investigations, and (2) that the informant or law enforcement agents might be endangered if the informant's identity were revealed. The court properly weighed this interest against Metz' need for the testimony, concluding that the balance weighed in favor of nondisclosure because the informant's testimony would be merely cumulative. The district court did not abuse its discretion. 33