Opinion
CASE NO. 1:14-CR-00214-21
07-17-2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. GERARDO RODRIGUEZ, Defendant.
OPINION & ORDER
[Resolving Doc. 84]
JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
In this criminal case, a federal grand jury has indicted Defendant Gerardo Rodriguez with drug related crimes.
Doc. 1 at 2-3, 78-79, 85, & 87.
Defendant Rodriguez moves the Court to order the United States to reveal the identity of "the informant" in this case. The United States opposes the motion.
Doc. 84.
Doc. 204.
For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES the motion without prejudice.
The government can withhold "the identify of persons who furnish information of criminal activities to law enforcement officials." This privilege "is limited by the fundamental requirements of fairness." Disclosure is required when the informant's identity "is relevant and helpful to the defense of an accused, or is essential to a fair determination of a cause." Whether disclosure is required "depend[s] 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."
United States v. Sharp, 778 F.2d 1182, 1185 (6th Cir. 1985).
Id.
Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 60-61 (1957) (footnote omitted).
Id. at 62.
A defendant must do more than speculate about how the identity of the informant will be relevant to a defense or be essential to a fair trial. Rather, the plaintiff must "adduce some evidence" of the defense or need "before the government is called upon to disclose to the defendant identity of an informant . . . (unless it may be subject to Brady disclosure requirements)."
Sharp, 778 F.2d at 1186 (quoting United States v. Jiles, 658 F.2d 194, 197 (3d Cir. 1981)).
Id. at 1187.
Here, Rodriguez says that because "[d]iscoverable information in this case reveals that this informant was an active participant in the alleged criminal activity," "it is crucial to the defense to discover the informant's identity and directly discuss with him the instructions and inducements by the DEA, FBI or others, or any payment for his services."
Doc. 84 at 2.
Defendant also says that the informant "is the only witness in a position to amplify or contradict the testimony of government witnesses regarding [his] knowledge of or involvement in this case" should Defendant choose not to testify at trial.
Id.
Defendant Rodriguez does not satisfy his burden to require the United States to disclose the identity of the informant. First, the Court observes that Defendant's arguments in favor of disclosure would be true every time an informant is also a member of the conspiracy. In each case, the informant would be the only witness in a position to amplify or contradict the testimony of prosecution witnesses should the defendant not testify. And whether and how much an informant was paid or instructed is always an issue for credibility and a potential defense of entrapment.
But more importantly, Rodriguez's arguments do not rise to the level the Supreme Court and the Sixth Circuit require to require disclosure. Rodriguez does not present any evidence of a specific defense he plans to raise using the identity of the informant. Without such evidence, the Court cannot determine that the identity is relevant to any defense or essential to a fair trial nor that an in camera review of the informant's identity is warranted.
The Court also notes the United States's remark that Rodriguez does not identify which informant Rodriguez wishes to interview. See Doc. 204 at 4.
See Sharp, 778 F.2d at 1187.
At this time, the Court will not order the United States to disclose the identity of any informants. However, Defendant Rodriguez may renew this motion should he become able to make a specific showing as to how he needs any informant's name. And the Court notes that the United States may need to disclose some informant information due to its obligations under Brady v. Maryland , Giglio v. United States , and the Jencks Act.
373 U.S. 83 (1963).
405 U.S. 150 (1972).
18 U.S.C. § 3500.
--------
Therefore, the Court DENIES the motion to order disclosure of informant information without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED
__________
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE