Opinion ID: 197938
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the disclosure motion

Text: 7 We review a district court's decision not to force the prosecution to divulge the identity of a confidential informant for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Lewis, 40 F.3d 1325, 1335 (1st Cir.1994). In this context, the abuse of discretion standard is quite deferential: the district court's resolution of a disclosure request should be upheld as long as it comports with some reasonable rendition of the record. See United States v. Bender, 5 F.3d 267, 269 (7th Cir.1993). 8 The Supreme Court first recognized a tattler's privilege--that is, a privilege to withhold the identity of an informant--in Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957). The privilege is designed to protect the government's sources and to shield citizens who contribute their knowledge to facilitate the prosecution of criminal acts. Still, the tattler's privilege is not absolute. In determining whether justification for an exception exists, the nisi prius court must balance the interests undergirding the privilege against the accused's fundamental right to a fair trial, and, in doing so, must take into account the full panoply of relevant circumstances (including the nature of the crime charged, the contours of the defenses asserted, the available means of proving the charges and defenses, and the significance of the informant's role). See id. at 62, 77 S.Ct. at 628-29; United States v. Martinez, 922 F.2d 914, 920-21 (1st Cir.1991); United States v. Giry, 818 F.2d 120, 130 (1st Cir.1987). 9 To further the policies behind the Roviaro rationale, the trial court's analysis begins with a presumption favoring confidentiality. Thus, the defendant must carry the devoir of persuasion to show that disclosure is necessary to mounting an adequate defense. See Lewis, 40 F.3d at 1335; Giry, 818 F.2d at 130. This burden is heavy, but not intractable. If, for example, the informant is the sole participant, other than the accused, in the transaction charged, or if the informant is the only person who is in a position to amplify or contradict crucial testimony of government witnesses, then the court may order disclosure. See Roviaro, 353 U.S. at 64, 77 S.Ct. at 629-30; Martinez, 922 F.2d at 920-21; United States v. Bibbey, 735 F.2d 619, 621 (1st Cir.1984). If, however, the informant is merely a source--one who does little more than put a flea in an officer's ear--the court almost always will deny disclosure. See Lewis, 40 F.3d at 1335; United States v. Batista-Polanco, 927 F.2d 14, 19-20 (1st Cir.1991). 10 Here, the appellant alleges that the confidential informants' identities would have been helpful in his defense. He notes that CI-1 identified a suspect named Louie as the person who was selling large quantities of cocaine at 151 Reynolds Avenue; that he obviously is not Louie (after all, the appellant is a six foot tall Caucasian who weighs 300 pounds--a far cry from a five foot eight inch Hispanic of medium build); that his most promising defense involved pointing a finger at Louie; and that, through CI-1, he might have discovered Louie's identity, or, at least, focused the jury's attention on a suspect other than himself. The appellant adds that he also needed to know CI-2's identity because CI-2 could testify that another cocaine transaction took place at 151 Reynolds Avenue after he (Robinson) was detained. The appellant claims that this information would lend credence to the idea that Louie was the real culprit. 11 The appellant says that the facts of this case mandate disclosure under our decision in Zaroogian v. United States, 367 F.2d 959 (1st Cir.1966). We demur. Assuming, without deciding, that Zaroogian remains good law, the rule elucidated there applies only when a defendant shows that an informant would make a valuable material witness for the defense. Id. at 962. The appellant has not made such a showing. 12 Here, the informers' evidence, though desired by the appellant, was peripheral to the crimes charges. In the last analysis, the jury convicted Robinson based not on what CI-1 or CI-2 said or did, but on his culpable presence at a locus where substantial amounts of contraband were found. 2 Neither CI-1 nor CI-2 could be expected to shed much light on these circumstances. Furthermore, even if the elusive Louie existed and could be run to ground, a showing that Louie was guilty would not exonerate the appellant. Hence, learning Louie's identity would be only marginally relevant, if relevant at all, to the charges confronting Robinson. 13 Where, as here, the government's informants neither participated in nor witnessed the events that inculpated the defendant and led to his arrest, the informants ordinarily are deemed mere tipsters. See, e.g., Martinez, 922 F.2d at 921; Giry, 818 F.2d at 130; United States v. Alonzo, 571 F.2d 1384, 1387 (5th Cir.1978). There is nothing in the record that removes this case from the sweep of that generalization. Moreover, we have held with a regularity bordering on the echolalic that tipsters, as opposed to informants who are active participants in the crimes charged, generally deserve anonymity. See, e.g., Martinez, 922 F.2d at 921; Giry, 818 F.2d at 130; United States v. Hemmer, 729 F.2d 10, 15 (1st Cir.1984). Consequently, the lower court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to force the government to divulge the informants' identities.