The United States Supreme Court held in Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56, 57 L.Ed.2d 667, 672, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 2676 (1978), that the fourth amendment requires that a hearing be held at the defendant's request if he or she makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause. People v. Taylor, 269 Ill. App.3d 772, 779, 646 N.E.2d 1280 (1995). In Franks, the Supreme Court explained the procedure as follows:
[Citation.]" People v. Taylor, 269 Ill. App.3d 772, 778-79 (1995). In this case, defendant made two motions for the release of the confidential informant's identity and now argues that the circuit court "expected too much in requiring Mr. Chavez to prove the materiality and relevance of a witness unknown to him, whose identity he hoped to secure by the motion."
Where the evidence is conflicting, it is the prerogative of the trier of fact to ascertain the truth and resolve minor discrepancies in the testimony of the witnesses. ( People v. Martin (1995), 271 Ill. App.3d 346, 351; People v. Taylor (1995), 269 Ill. App.3d 772, 783.) The testimony of only one credible witness can sustain a conviction.