Tenth Circuit US v. Cruz 11-2136

Decision here.

   In March of 2010, police searched Cruz's home and found baggies of meth, cash, fake IDs, and horse steroids (which are apparently used to cut meth.  Holy hell!).  There was no paraphernalia associated with actually using meth found in the home, though.  Cruz was charged with (and eventually convicted of) possession with intent to distribute.  A week prior to the raid, police had watched a controlled buy with a confidential informant.

   The informant did not testify, and the prosecution did not disclose the informant's identity.  Instead, police testified that they watched the informant go into the house, then come back out with something that tested positive for meth.  One of Cruz's arguments on appeal was that the court had erred in not disclosing the identity of the informant.

   The Tenth Circuit observed that whether or not an informant's identity needs to be disclosed depends on the facts of the case.  The courts are required to balance the defendant's interest in mounting a defense against society's interests in protecting the identity of informants (for their safety, and for the sake of future investigations).  Courts which have held that an informant's identity must be disclosed have generally done so under circumstances where an informant was the only witness who could support a defense theory or refute a prosecution witness.  Courts which have held that an informant's identity may remain secret have generally done so under circumstances where the value of the informant to the defense was speculative or irrelevant.  In this case, the court held that the informant's testimony was more likely to incriminate Cruz, and that the controlled buy hadn't formed the basis of Cruz' indictment (the basis was the evidence found in the search).  Cruz's conviction was affirmed, as was the order denying the disclosure of the CI's identity.