Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

00-3629 U.S. v. Jefferson

By: dmc-admin//June 11, 2001//

00-3629 U.S. v. Jefferson

By: dmc-admin//June 11, 2001//

Listen to this article

“Even assuming the confidential informant would testify as Jefferson claims he would, Jefferson has not shown that such testimony would be particularly significant to his defense. Unlike the defendant in [U.S. v. Bender, 5 F.3d 267 (7th Cir. 1993)], Jefferson’s charges included charges of conspiracy. However, the charges against Jefferson were based on evidence which was obtained when the search warrant was executed and statements made by Jefferson and McCoy at the time of their arrests, not on any criminal activity the confidential informant had witnessed. The confidential informant was a mere ‘tipster,’ who provided law enforcement officials with information which led to the acquisition of the search warrant. Although the informant had been present at the residence shortly before the warrant was executed, his role ended at the conclusion of the third drug buy, and he was not present when the warrant was executed and the search was conducted or when the post-arrest statements were made. As the panel in Bender recognized, the public has a strong interest in protecting the free flow of information in cases such as these and ‘not many people want to become police informants in light of the violence within the drug subculture.’ Bender, 5 F.3d at 270. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jefferson’s motion for disclosure and production of the confidential informant.”

Affirmed.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests