{"id":6877,"date":"2012-03-24T15:03:09","date_gmt":"2012-03-25T00:19:51","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2012-03-24T15:00:26","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6877","title":{"rendered":"D.N.J.: Defendant failed to show need for access to CI identity under Roviaro<\/em> even where it is claimed CI framed defendant"},"content":{"rendered":"

In a FIPF case where the gun was the target of a search warrant, the defendant did not show enough to get access to the CI\u2019s identity under Roviaro<\/a>. The CI was not central to the charge under the government’s theory of constructive possession. Here, it was all speculative what the defense was trying to prove. United States v. Anthony, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38123 (D. N.J. March 20, 2012):<\/p>\n

Defendant offers a series of contentions for why disclosure is warranted, including: the need to challenge the basis for the warrant; the fact that the informant is the only person who claims to have seen Defendant in possession of the firearm; and the need to investigate Defendant’s theory that the informant played a role in framing Defendant. None of these reasons provides a sufficient basis to overcome the qualified privilege.<\/p>\n

First, the validity of the search warrant does not turn on the informant’s intentions or mental state. …<\/p>\n

Second, the Government does not intend to introduce the informant’s testimony at trial in order to prove possession; instead, the Government will present a case for constructive possession. Therefore, there is no need to cross-examine the informant regarding the informant’s claimed observations.<\/p>\n

The third and final issue is the question of whether disclosure is necessary because the informant’s identity is helpful to Anthony’s defense involving the gun having been planted by the informant or the informant’s co-conspirator. This is the kind of defense theory that does not rise above mere speculation or hope. …<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Roviaro<\/a> was decided in 1957, yet I still occasionally see charges where the prosecuting attorney charged the defendant with the underlying CI offense thereby making the CI a material witness. They apparently were not paying attention in law school or when reading the file.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6877","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6877","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6877"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6877\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6877"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6877"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6877"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}