◆ SpookStack

116 Nos. 77-1698, 77-1210 & 77-1370 would be no place for it. The sad fact, however, is that this is not the best of all worlds and crime, whether it is caused by poverty, economic inequality, psychological maladjustment, or other causes for which society may be responsible, does continue to exist, and at the present moment appears in no way to be declining. Particularly with regard to those who have consciously embarked upon a criminal career, one of the most effective ways of learning of their activities and curtailing them is through the use of confidential informants. I would let the matter rest upon the determination of Judge Perry, who had the opportunity to see and evaluate Groth’s credibility. The fact that Groth declined to reveal the informant’s identity to Judge Perry in camera is a strong indication of the truth of his asser- tion that the informant’s life would be endangered by his identification. O’Neal’s identity could be revealed even though his usefulness as an informant was thereby ended because he was no longer associated with the Black Panther Party. There is ample basis for belief that if Groth’s informant were still in such an associa- tion he would be in a position of retributive jeopardy. I cannot -conceive that the scope of our appellate - review is such as to permit us to conclude, as Judge Swygert’s opinion does, that upon remand the identity of the informer must be disclosed. The matter, if it really is of significance, which I doubt on the facts of this case, should be reexamined carefully in the light of Roviaro »v, United States, 358 U.S. 53 (1957). By this court deciding as a matter of law that the identity of the informer js not entitled to protection, we are deciding a factual matter in much the same way as that which the majori- ty faults Judge Perry for doing. 4. Discovery matters. I have already earlier in this dissent expressed my views on this subject. This was not in trite parlance “a fine-tooth-comb” operation but was a time-wasting and harassing “fishing expedition.” _ 5. Evidentiary rulings. I find no basis for a reversal n this respect. The Anderson plaintiffs’ claims for the most part relate either to instances where the judge