Reader Ad Slot
Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Fred Hampton — Part 3
Page 67
67 / 251
Nos. 77-1698, 77-1210 & 77-1370 63
danger the informant might be subjected to if his
identity were disclosed. The court concluded that the
reliability of Groth’s informant was established by the
results of the raid and, therefore, inquiry into his
identity was irrelevant. At the end of trial, the judge
refused to give instructions to the jury which would
have allowed it to decide whether the informant existed
and whether information about the informant was
relevant to the conspiracy and Fourth Amendment
claims of plaintiffs.
Since Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957), it
has been clear that the so-called informer’s privilege
(the privilege that protects the identity of a person
which otherwise would be required to be disclosed
during the course of litigation) is not absolute.2? In
Roviaro the Court said, “Where the disclosure of an
informer’s identity ... 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.”
Id. at 60-61. The Court went on to explain the test to be
applied to determine when disclosure is required:
We believe that no fixed rule with respect to
disclosure is justifiable. The problem is one that
ealls for balancing the public interest in protecting
the flow of information against the individual’s
right to prepare his defense. Whether a proper
balance renders nondisclosure erroneous must de-
pend on the particular circumstances of each case,
taking into consideration the crime charged, the
possible defenses, the possible significance of the
informer’s testimony, and other relevant factors.
% The trial judge, in his “Summary,” never mentioned
Roviaro. In fact, he cited only a Missouri appellate court
criminal case, Hx parte McClelland, 521 S.W.2d 481 (Mo.
App. 1975), to support his conclusion that Groth was not re-
uired to disclose the identity of his informant. Apart from
the judge’s obvious failure to apply the appropriate con-
trolling precedent, his analysis and reliance on McClelland is
not entirely accurate. There is a factual similarity between
(Footnote continued on following page)
Reveal the original PDF page, then click a word to highlight the OCR text.
Community corrections
No user corrections yet.
Comments
No comments on this document yet.
Bottom Reader Ad Slot
Bottom Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Continue Exploring
Agency Collection
Explore This Archive Cluster
Broad Topic Hub
Topic Hub
letter
bureau
Related subtopics
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic