When is the Prosecution Required to Reveal the Identity of a Confidential Informant?

Legal Issue

Whether the prosecution must be compelled to reveal the identity of a confidential informant if the defense claims misidentification and police officer is the only witness presented.

Conclusion

Court ordered the disclosure of the confidential informants identity since identity and testimony of the informant was relevant and necessary for a fair determination of the case.

Facts

Appellant Payne was identified to an undercover police officer as a drug dealer. A drug purchase was arranged. With the informant present and witnessing the act, the police officer purchased 7.4 grams of cocaine. The purchase took place on May 11, 1990, however Appellant Payne was not arrested until December 10, 1990. The police officer had no further contact with the appellant before the trial.

Legal Reason/ Rational

The court views two specific lines of cases in consideration of whether an informant's identity must be revealed. The first involves an informant who provides "probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant," the second involves and informant who is considered a material witness to a crime and does not involve a warrant and the defense of mistaken identity is raised. The court held that Commonwealth v. Carter, 427 Pa. 53, 233 A.2d 284 (1967) most closely related to the case in which the government has the privilege of non-disclosure but that the privilege has to give way when disclosure of an eyewitness's identity is relevant and helpful to the defense or is necessary to a fair determination of a cause.

Carter, also refutes the contention that secrecy is necessary to fight the drug trade or possible retribution against informant.

The court also refers to Commonwealth v. Lloyd, 427 Pa. 261, 234 A.2d 423 (1967) which involves a case of mistaken identity in which the defendant was granted a new trial because the sole eyewitness to testify was the police officer and the informant was in fact a material witness. The same reasoning is given in Commonwealth v. Washington, 463 Pa. 206, 344 A.2d 496 (1975).

Since the defendant claimed the charges were cases of mistaken identity and no one was there to testify except the police officer, the confidential informants identity and testimony are necessary to either confirm or refute the charges.

All legal issues and case law can be reviewed at you local law library. A copy of Commonwealth v. Payne, 540 Pa. 54 can be viewed in its entirety on lexis.com.