Opinion ID: 4026388
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Doxey’s Motion for Disclosure of CI’s Identity

Text: In March 2014, Doxey’s second attorney filed a motion to disclose the identity of the CI. In his motion, Doxey argued that disclosure of the CI’s identity would allow him to assess the strength of the government’s case. His motion stated that “[w]ithout this information, [Doxey] is unable to make an informed decision regarding proceeding to trial.” (R. 28, Brief in Support of Motion for Disclosure of Informant’s Identity, PageID# 46.) The government opposed the motion, arguing that the CI was “merely a tipster.” (R. 29, Response to Motion for Disclosure, PageID# 54.) At a final pretrial conference, Doxey’s third and final attorney asked the district court to rule on the arguments in the brief submitted by Doxey’s prior counsel. The district court denied the motion to disclose the CI’s identity on the ground that disclosure was not necessary to ensure Doxey obtained a fair trial. The district court reasoned that because the CI’s role was limited to providing information without further participation, this was not an exceptional circumstance requiring disclosure.