Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

Re: Confidential informant

I'm limited to 3000 characters in my response. No way is this adequate for this question, and you'll see why. Here's as brief a synopsis as I can give on this very complex issue:

Disclosure of a CI's identity may or may not be compelled, depending on the demonstrated relationship of the informant to the charged offense. Disclosure will be ordered if the CI is shown to be:

(1) a participant in the crime;

(2) a percipient witness ("eyewitness") to the crime or "it's immediate antecedents" (what led up to it); or

(3) neither a participant or percipient witness, but a material witness on the issue of the defendant's guilt, who can give evidence that might exonerate the defendant.

Materiality under that third prong is very tricky. In general, the defendant must show what the informant was in a position to percieve, and whether there is a reasonable possibility that the informant could give evidence that might result in the defendant's exoneration. If the defense establishes any of these, and the prosecutor refuses to disclose, the case is dismissed (or, if appropriate, only a lesser crime--ie straight possssion may be charged (and thankx to Prop 36, no jail).

A defendant should move to disclose the identity of the CI as soon as possible, although different showings are required before and after prelim. Also, the general rule is that the address of the CI must also be disclosed if the identity is disclosed. That general rule is subject to an exception that basically swallows the rule, especially pre-prelim: If the DA shows good cause to withhold the info, it won't be disclosed. Courts usually find that the basic idea that "being a CI is dangerous work" is enough to keep the info a secret.

I have found that discovery of the CI is crucial to a defense. I have also found that is is no easy task, and the defense better be well-prepared to attack, fail, BE attacked, and attack again on this issue, until you prevail. Prosecutors and police will often fight hard to protect the identity and location of their CI. Otherwise they're not too useful anymore.

There is so much I am leaving out. You can call or e-mail me and give more details, and I'd be happy to answer your question more specifically. You should consult with some attorney as the importance of this cannot be overstated and time is of the essence. Good luck.

Kindest regards,

JACQUELINE GOODMAN RUBIO

Attorney at Law

(800)515-0233

Re: Confidential informant

Is it true that when they have to disclose information about the informant in order for the defendant to have a fair trial, they just have to disclose the name?

If the informant's name is ordered disclosed, generally, the address AND contact information must also be disclosed. However, there may be exceptions, depending on factors not known here.

If the informant is supposedly not around to bring to court to testify, would the case be dismissed?

This, again, depends on information not known here. There are situations where the absence of the informant can cause a dismissal, but there are situations where it will not. Additional information must be known to answer definitively.

Can the Judge deny you the right to know your accuser? Or would that be considered not giving you the right to have a fair trial?

Sounds like a broken record, but again, that depends. Generally, you have the right to be confronted by your accuser. Generally, that person is named. However, there may be times when the general rule is not followed, and that isn't known here.

I recommend you have a consultation with a criminal lawyer in your area. Most criminal lawyers give free consultations. If your case is in LA, don't hesitate to call me for a free consultation. Steve Mandell 310 393 0639