Free Order on Motion for Disclosure - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :07-cr—00048-GIVIS Document 34 Filed 11/15/2007 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
Plaintiff, i
v. 5 Criminal Action No. 07-48 GMS
TYRONE ROANE, g
Defendant. g
ORDER
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2007, the Grand Jury for the District of Delaware indicted the
defendant for possession with intent to distribute more than five grams of cocaine base, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(l)(B), possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(l )(A), and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2);
WHEREAS, the indictment was the result of the defendant’s arrest, on March 29, 2007;
WHEREAS, on March 29, 2007, the Wilmington Police Department received information
from a confidential source that a black male wearing a black and white jacket was observed
conducting a drug transaction at or near 2201 North Pine Street, Wilmington, Delaware;
WHEREAS, the information provided by the confidential source led, in part, to the
defendant’s arrest;
WHEREAS, on November 13, 2007, the defendant filed a Motion for the disclosure of the
identity of the confidential source (D.I. 31);
WHEREAS, the motion asserts that the identity of and any information pertaining to the
confidential source should be disclosed to the extent that he or she may have observed part or all of

Case 1:07-cr—00048-GIVIS Document 34 Filed 11/15/2007 Page 2 of 3
the circumstances of the defendant’s arrest;
WHEREAS, courts traditionally protect the identity of a confidential source who provides
information to law enforcement in order to further and protect the public interest in effective law
enforcement; I
WHEREAS, "[w]here the disclosure of an informer’s identity, or of the contents of the
communication, is relevant and helpful to the defense of an accused, or is essential to a fair
determination of a cause, the privilege must give way;"2
WHEREAS, "mere speculation as to the usefulness of the informant’s testimony to the
defendant is insufficient to justify disclosure of his [or her] identity;"3
WHEREAS, nothing in the record indicates that the confidential source in the present case
observed any of the circumstances of the defendant’s arrest;
WHEREAS, the confidential source does not appear on the government’s witness list and
will not be called to testify at trial; and
‘ See Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 59 (1957) ("The privilege recognizes the
obligation of citizens to communicate their knowledge of the commission of crimes to law
enforcement officials and, by preserving their anonymity, encourages them to perform that
ob1igation.").
2 Id. at 60-61; see United States v. Jiles, 658 F.2d 194, 198-99 (3d Cir. 1981) ("[T]he
Court specifically articulated those circumstances in Rovairo which required the informant’s
identity be released: (1) the possible testimony was highly relevant; (2) it might have disclosed an
entrapment; (3) it might have thrown doubt upon the defendant’s identity; and (4) the infonner
was the sole participant other than the accused, in the transaction charged."); United States v.
Bazzano, 712 F.2d 826, 839 (3d Cir. 1983) ("ln determining whether the privilege should be
sustained, a court must ‘ba1anc[e] the public interest in protecting the flow of information against
the individual’s right to prepare his defense.).
3 Bazzano, 712 F.2d at 839 (citation omitted).
2

Case 1:07-cr—00048-GIVIS Document 34 Filed 11/15/2007 Page 3 of 3
WHEREAS, the court concludes that the defendant’s motion offers mere speculation as to
his need for the disclosure of the confidential source’s identity;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
l. The defendant’s Motion for Disclosure of Identity and information Pertaining to
Confidential Informant (D.l. 31) is DENIED.4
Dated: November P5 , 2007 .
CHIE , UNITED STATES D TRICT JUD
F I L E D
NOV l 5 2007
u.s. msrmcr COURT
msmncr OF DELAWARE
4 Because the authority is well-settled on the issue of disclosing the identity of a
confidential source, the court decides this motion without a response from the government.
3