IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

ATLANTA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

) CRIMINAL ACTION NO.:

V. ) 1:96-CR-367

)

xxxxxxxxxxx )

MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF NAMES AND LOCATIONS

OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANTS

AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT

COMES NOW xxxxxxx, by and through undersigned counsel, and files this motion for the production of the location of the confidential informant in this case.

According to discovery provided by the Government, an informant had provided information indicating that Mr. xxxxx was engaged in the manufacture of shanks. Undersigned counsel has reason to believe that the Government may try to introduce this evidence at trial and further believes that this person may have dealt directly with Mr. xxxxx.

In order to fully prepare the defense, counsel for Mr. xxxxx requests that the Government be ordered to disclose the confidential informant's name and location. The location of the informant is also required to assure that he can be subpoenaed for trial in this matter.

AUTHORITY

In Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957), the Supreme Court set forth a balancing test for determining when disclosure of the identity of the confidential informant is required. This test looks at the particular circumstances of each case and considers the crime charged, possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer's testimony, and other relevant factors. Id., at 62.

Cases in this Circuit often have focused on two factors to determine whether the disclosure of a confidential informant is required in a particular case: the extent to which the informant has participated in the activity, and the directness of the relationship between the defendant's asserted defense and the probable testimony of the informant. United States v. Kerris, 748 F.2d 610, 613-14 (11th Cir. 1984). Once a defendant has shown the importance of a confidential informant to his defense, the Government cannot hide the informant to prevent the defendant from calling him as a witness at trial. See United States v. Godkins, 527 F.2d 1321, 1326-27 (5th Cir. 1976).

Therefore, once the defendant has shown the need for the informant to properly assert a particular defense, a court should permit access to that informant for purposes of interviewing and obtaining possible testimony. In the present case, Mr. xxxxx needs the location of the confidential informant involved in this investigation. To fully protect against inadvertent pre-trial disclosure of the particulars of his defense, Mr. xxxxx requests an in camera hearing concerning this matter. Mr. xxxxx requests that the Court hear from counsel for each side separately concerning the need for disclosure and access to the confidential informant. Such an in camera proceeding has long been accepted as a method for weighing the factors involving possible disclosure of and access to a confidential informant. See Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 182 n. 14 (1969); United States v. Fischer, 531 F.2d 783, 788 (5th Cir. 1976).

At the in camera hearing on his motion, Mr. xxxxx will make a proffer to the Court concerning his need for the identity of and access to the confidential informants. Once that proffer has been made, Mr. xxxxx respectfully submits that the Court order the Government to disclose the location of the confidential informant involved in this case.

As noted above, undersigned counsel is aware of one confidential informant from discovery documents provided by the Government. However, if there are other informants who dealt directly with the defendant, undersigned counsel respectfully requests that they be disclosed as well.

Respectfully submitted this day of October, 1996.

_______________________________

V. NATASHA PERDEW (571970)

ATTORNEY FOR MR. xxxxx

Federal Defender Program, Inc.

Suite 3512, 101 Marietta Tower

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

404/688-7530

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing Motion for Production of Names and Locations of Confidential Informants and Brief in Support by hand delivery upon:

GORDON MILLER, ESQUIRE

Assistant United States Attorneys

1800 Richard B. Russell Building

75 Spring Street, S. W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

DATED: July 19, 2000.

______________________________

V. NATASHA PERDEW (571970)

ATTORNEY FOR MR. xxxxx

C:\wwwfpd\inform.htm