The so-called "War on Drugs" is not fought in the trenches. It is fought in the back rooms of courthouses and of police stations. It is there that a nearly constant flow of secret information drives law enforcement efforts. It is there that agents "debrief" confidential informants. Rarely are these informants civic-minded citizens whose only motive is to help the police round up the criminals. Rather, these informants are the least reliable of all witnesses. The vast majority of the time, police informants are individuals who are are already under arrest or under indictment, and who are attempting to buy their way out of trouble with the currency of the realm: information on others.
Not surprisingly, under both federal and state law, the identity of confidential informants is privileged information. Sec. 905.10(1), Stats. Only under certain circumstances must the government divulge the names of their informants. This article will show you how to do it.
Under Wisconsin law, there are only two circumstances where the State may be compelled to identify a confidential informant: (1) the informant's testimony is needed for a fair determination of the merits of the charge; or, (2) if information from the informant was used to obtain a search warrant, and there is reason to question the actual existence of the informant.
Expose informants to the light
Generally speaking, an informant's testimony is necessary for a fair determination of the merits if he or she is a "transactional witness." See, State v. Outlaw, 108 Wis.2d 112, 321 N.W.2d 145 (1982). A transactional witness is one who-- quite literally-- was involved in a relevant drug transaction with the defendant, or one who is an eyewitness to any relevant event. If this is the case, the defendant must file a motion to identify the confidential informant. If the court agrees, the judge will order the State to identify the informant. At that point the prosecutor is confronted with an important decision. He may either comply with the court's order to identify the informant, or he may dismiss the case. Not surprisingly, many times the State will dismiss the case rather than identify the confidential informant. This is because the confidential informant is most likely providing information on a number of individuals. Identifying the informant would jeopardize all such investigations.
It may seem obvious that most informants-- if they really possess information about drug dealing-- must necessarily be transactional witnesses. However, in practice, this is not the case. Frequently, the informants are used only to obtain search warrants. Typically, the search warrant will allege something to the effect that "confidential informant number 55874 ("CI")" was, within the past seventy-two hours, inside the home of the suspect, John Doe, and observed packaging materials, cash, and a baggies containing white powder that CI knows to be cocaine. Days later, agents will execute the warrant and the defendant is charged with possession of cocaine with intent to deliver.
If the defendant, John Doe, attempts to force the state to identify the confidential informant, the State takes the position that the only relevant evidence is what occurred on the day the warrant was executed. The defendant may argue that the confidential informant is an eyewitness to the identity of the occupants of the home (if there were more than the defendant), and who exercised dominion and control over the drugs near in time to the execution of the warrant. Unfortunately, though, this argument rarely persuades the judge.
In federal court , the defendant's task in forcing the government to identify the confidential informant is somewhat easier. The federal authorities tend to make use of conspiracy to distribute charges more frequently than they charge simple possession of drugs, or possession with intent to distribute. Thus, the government informants are far more likely to be transactional witnesses. Informants in conspiracy charges tend to give information to the effect that he was associated with the defendant, John Doe, for six months in the year 2009 and, during that time, John Doe distributed approximately one kilogram of cocaine per month in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Plainly, such testimony is necessary to a fair determination of whether the defendant is guilty of conspiracy to distribute cocaine.
There are other obstacles in federal court, though, Typically, if the court orders the government to identify the informants, the order will allow the government to do so no later than thirty days before trial. Since the vast majority of federal charges are resolved short of trial, the government is rarely called upon to actually identify the informant. Nonetheless, for those defendants who do proceed to trial, they will learn the names of the government's confidential informants.
__________________________________ Schiro & Zarzynski Personal Injury Attorneys Milwaukee, WI 53203 414.224.0825
"The bully lawyer" _____________________________
Milwaukee criminal defense attorney Jeffrey W. Jensen, of the Law Offices of Jeffrey W. Jensen, a Milwaukee law firm with offices located at 735 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Twelfth Floor, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, has represented persons throughout the State of Wisconsin. If you will face felony charges in either state court or in federal court you should call 414.224.9484. Attorney Jensen regularly appears in Milwaukee County (Milwaukee criminal defense lawyer), Waukesha County (Waukesha criminal defense lawyer, Brookfield criminal defense lawyer), Washington County (West Bend and Germantown criminal defense lawyer), Racine County (Racine criminal defense lawyer), Kenosha County (Kenosha criminal defense lawyer), Brown County (Green Bay criminal defense lawyer), Fond du Lac County (Fond du Lac criminal defense lawyer), and Winnebago County (Oshkosh criminal defense lawyer)
The material on this site is a product of the Law Offices of Jeffrey W. Jensen. Unless otherwise noted it may be used for any legal purpose with attribution.