Court Opinion

ID: 9453086
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:01:47.260289+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:29.844154
License: Public Domain

BIGGS, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I concur fully in the opinion of the court insofar as it relates to the appeal in United States v. Ruth Jackson at our No. 16376.
In respect to the appeal of Eugene Jackson at our No. 16375, it seems to be an appropriate technique for a United States district judge to examine an informer in camera to discover whether or not his testimony is “highly material” or can be of substantial assistance to a defendant. Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 63, 77 S.Ct. 623 (1957). But it is also my view that if the testimony of the informer, by the in camera examination, is shown to be “highly material” or of substantial assistance to the defendant the name of the informer must be disclosed to the defendant or the Government’s case dismissed. In Eugene Jackson’s case, the transcript of the testimony of the informer given in camera demonstrates that instead of the informer aiding Jackson’s defense, the informer’s testimony would be of very substantial assistance to the prosecution. Under these circumstances I join the majority in affirming the judgment against Eugene Jackson.