U.S. v. Moralez
| Decision Date | 22 October 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-1154,89-1154 |
| Citation | 917 F.2d 18 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen MORALEZ, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Before McKAY and MOORE, Circuit Judges, and DUMBAULD, Senior District Judge. *
This matter is before the court following a remand ordered in United States v. Moralez, 908 F.2d 565 (10th Cir.1990). In that case, we reviewed the district court's refusal to grant defendant's motion for disclosure of the identity of a "confidential informant." The defendant contended the "informant" was a potential eye witness to the events leading to his indictment who could aid his defense with exculpatory testimony. The trial court had denied this motion upon a finding the "informant" was a mere "tipster." Because this finding was made without benefit of evidence or an offer of proof, we were unable to determine whether the district court had made the balancing test required by Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957). We therefore remanded this case for the limited purposes of conducting an in camera hearing to determine whether disclosure of the identity of the informant is warranted and whether the government has a bona fide interest in resisting disclosure.
The district court conducted a hearing at which it asked counsel for the government and the defendant to submit questions to be asked of the informant. The court then excused counsel and brought the informant into a closed courtroom for interrogation. At the conclusion of the proceeding, the court made findings of fact, which it sealed. These findings, together with the sealed transcript of the in camera hearing, have been transmitted to us for further review. 1
The district court found that the government has demonstrated a need to protect the informant. The court heard testimony that the informant fears retaliation and physical harm if the informant's identity were revealed. There is ample evidence in the record to justify that fear and to support the district court's conclusion. Further disclosure of the circumstances might tend to reveal matters which could lead to the identity of the informant; therefore, we state we are confident this aspect of the Roviaro test has been satisfied and there is a legitimate public interest in protecting the identity of the informant.
The trial court next concluded, on the basis of the testimony of the informant, that the person was a "mere tipster."...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Salley
...--- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 260, 116 L.Ed.2d 214 (1991); United States v. Martinez, 922 F.2d 914, 921 (1st Cir.1991); United States v. Moralez, 917 F.2d 18, 19 (10th Cir.1990); see also United States v. Blevins, 960 F.2d 1252, 1258 (4th Cir.1992) (although informant observed all crucial events......
-
US v. Reece
...the informant's safety. The district court also concluded that the confidential informant was a "mere tipster." In United States v. Moralez, 917 F.2d 18 (10th Cir.1990) (Moralez' appeal after remand), the court of appeals affirmed the district court. The court of appeals The informant had o......
-
Butcher v. State
...the defendant and the defense attorney"), aff'd 191 F.3d 454, 1999 U.S.App. LEXIS 23344 (6th Cir. Sept. 21, 1999); United States v. Moralez, 917 F.2d 18 (10th Cir.1990) (Order) (trial court asked counsel for the government and the defendant to submit questions to be asked of the informer, t......
-
U.S. v. Gordon, 98-2100
...are unrelated to any issue in Gordon's case. See United States v. Wynne, 993 F.2d 760, 766 (10th Cir.1993); United States v. Moralez, 917 F.2d 18, 19 (10th Cir.1990); United States v. Zamora, 784 F.2d 1025, 1030 (10th Cir.1986) ("if a confidential informant was only a 'tipster,' and not an ......
-
Piercing the veil of informant confidentiality: the role of in camera hearings in the Roviaro determination.
...(230.) See Savage, 969 F. Supp. at 453-54 (laying out the different types of approaches). (231.) See, e.g., United States v. Moralez, 917 F.2d 18, 18-19 (10th Cir. 1990) (affirming the denial of defendant's Roviaro motion where district court held closed hearing outside the presence of both......