Page 37 - SEPT OCTOBER 2019_PJ - Final_Neat

“point[ed] directly at the defendant and his guilt in identity could be dangerous for the informant and
the crime charged,” it was not a permissible use of his family. It is not clear from the record,
tipster evidence. Thus, the introduction of this however, whether the district court fully
statement at trial violated the Confrontation considered the level of the informant’s
Clause. involvement in the contested conduct and the
potential helpfulness of disclosure to Jones’s
Jones also appeals the denial of his motion to
defense. These factors are closely tied to our
disclose the identity of the confidential informant.
Confrontation Clause analysis. As explained
We review a district court’s decision to deny
above, the government’s use of the confidential
disclosure of an informant’s identity for abuse of
informant at Jones’s trial exceeded the scope of a
discretion. United States v. Ibarra, 493 F.3d 526,
“mere tipster.” The government instead elicited
531 (5th Cir. 2007). There is “no fixed rule” in this
testimony that the confidential informant
area because “[t]he problem is one that calls for
confirmed facts central to its case—that a drug
balancing the public interest in protecting the flow
deal occurred on May 3, 2017, and that Jones
of information against the individual’s right to
received a large amount of methamphetamine in
prepare his defense.” Roviaro v. United States, 353
that transaction.
U.S. 53, 62 (1957). “We apply a three factor test to
determine whether the identity of a confidential Jones argues that disclosure of the informant’s
informant should be disclosed: ‘(1) the level of the identity would have been helpful to his defense
informant’s activity; (2) the helpfulness of the because the informant could have been cross-
disclosure to the asserted defense; and (3) the examined regarding the benefits he received in
Government’s interest in nondisclosure.’” United exchange for assisting law enforcement as well as
States v. Ortega, 854 F.3d 818, 824 (5th Cir. 2017) his own criminal history. This information was
(quoting Ibarra, 493 F.3d at 531). discussed during the district court’s ex parte
hearing with the government but was not
In response to Jones’s request for disclosure, the
disclosed to Jones before trial.7 The value of
government represented that the informant “just
impeachment evidence depends on how a witness
gave a tip,” “was not on the scene on any of this
is used at trial and whether the witness’s
that will be the subject of trial,” and “would not be
credibility is a relevant issue in the case.
a fact witness.” The district court held an ex parte
hearing with the government and subsequently Here, the government relied on the confidential
denied Jones’s motion for disclosure of the informant’s representation that a drug transaction
confidential informant, citing safety concerns and was completed on May 3, 2017. Moreover, the
the government’s long relationship with the government highlighted the trustworthiness of the
informant. We have affirmed the denial of a confidential informant during closing arguments.
request for disclosure when the confidential The government noted that the informant had
informant “was a mere tipster,” the informant did provided reliable information about Cruz-Ortiz on
not provide information that would aid the multiple occasions and that law enforcement
defense, and disclosure posed risks to the safety of officers were “able to confirm what they’re being
the informant and his family and could jeopardize told by their informant, based on the information
other ongoing investigations. Ibarra, 493 F.3d at he gives them.” The government also emphasized
532. that the informant was providing information
about Cruz-Ortiz, not Jones, and “[i]t’s not like
Upon review of the transcript of the ex parte
the CI is trying to frame up Coy Jones.” Under
hearing, we concur in the district court’s
these circumstances, an opportunity to challenge
assessment that disclosure of the informant’s

Sept./Oct. 2019 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 33