The use of confidential informants in drug cases remains a controversial practice. Unfortunately, the appeals court said the defendant failed to present any evidence “that the informant might be the same person responsible for the methamphetamine.” Speak with Houston Drug Crimes Defense Lawyer Tad Nelson Today This defense was based on the defense’s statement to police that another man allegedly left methamphetamine in his motel room, ostensibly to set up the defendant for the possession charge. But the mere fact that officers relied on the informant to establish the “probable cause” necessary to obtain a search warrant did not make the informant’s testimony necessary towards the “fair determination” of the defendant’s guilt or innocence.Īdditionally, the Third District said the defendant could not reasonably explain how disclosure of the informant’s identity would have helped him present a viable entrapment defense. It would be different, the Court observed, if the informant were an eyewitness or participant to the alleged crime. A police officer testified that he applied for a search warrant of the defendant’s motel room based on information he received from the informant regarding “drug activity.” The officer said the informant was not present during the actual search, however, and it was that search that uncovered evidence of drug possession with intent to deliver.Īs the Third District explained, the use of a confidential informant’s statements to help law enforcement obtain a search warrant is not, in and of itself, sufficient grounds to require disclosure of the informant’s identity to the defense. At a subsequent pre-trial hearing, the prosecution invoked privilege to withhold the identity of a confidential informant. To give some additional background, a grand jury indicted the defendant for “possession with intent to deliver” methamphetamine.
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT CASES TRIAL
The trial judge, however, decided the informant’s testimony was not relevant enough to warrant disclosure of their identity. In this case, the defendant sought disclosure of an informant to help the defendant prove he was the victim of police entrapment. State, demonstrates how this burden can adversely affect a defendant’s ability to receive a fair trial. A recent decision from the Texas Third District Court of Appeals, Hirst v. The burden is on the defendant–not the prosecution–to show that disclosure of a confidential informant is important or necessary to their case.
Defendant in Meth Case Failed to Tie Informant to Entrapment Defense By law, the prosecution may continue to keep the identity of these informants secret from the defendant during trial, unless the judge determines there is a “reasonable probability” that the informant can offer testimony “necessary to a fair determination of guilt or innocence.” Before the judge applies this exception, however, they must first hold a hearing outside the presence of the jury to determine if reasonable probability exists. Texas law enforcement often relies on “confidential informants” to assist them in making drug arrests.
0 kommentar(er)
