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 69
69 / 251
Nos. 77-1698, 77-1210 & 77-1870 65
defenses,”*! the “possible significance” of the informa-
tion, and “the seriousness of the litigation.” Jd. at 771.
The trial judge never attempted to apply the Roviaro
balancing test or to determine whether disclosure was
essential to a fair determination of plaintiffs’ cause of
action. The judge, in fact, resisted plaintiffs’ efforts to
develop a record on these issues. Ordinarily, we would
remand the disclosure issue to the trial court for
adjudication under the appropriate legal standards. In
this case, however, enough evidence relevant to the
validity of Groth’s assertion of informeér’s privilege has
been amassed throughout the trial to make such a
remand unnecessary.
A considerable amount of evidence was introduced
leading to the conclusion that either Groth did not have
an informant and merely repeated information he had
received from Jalovec in the affidavit for the warrant or
that O’Neal was Groth’s informant as well as the
ultimate source for Jalovec’s information. First, Groth had
no record of payments to his informant since, according
to Groth, the informant’s information was provided for
advancement in other areas. Groth never elaborated
what these incentives were. Further, the similarity of
the content and the timing of the information received
by Jalovec and Groth is striking: Each said that on
December 2 his informant told him about the weapons,
inhabitants and visitors to the apartment, the apart-
ment’s layout, and the BPP meeting on December 3.
And while, as the state defendants correctly indicate,
this could mean simply that the reports provided by two
different sources were corroborated, the fact that each
report was similarly incorrect about the number of
sawed-off shotguns in the apartment casts doubt on this
explanation. Groth’s destruction of all the information he
received from his informant, including the floorplan he
allegedly constructed based on his informant’s descrip-
tion of the apartment, also undermines Groth’s claim
that he had an independent source. More importantly,
Jalovec asked Mitchell after the raid if he cared
41 And, conversely, the relevance to the establishment of a
cause of action.
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