concluding that disclosure was necessary despite presence of third party; however, record unclear as to whether the third party witness saw or heard the sale at issue and, in any event, the witness “was under indictment for [his] participation in [the sale].”
How later courts described this case
- concluding that disclosure was necessary despite presence of third party; however, record unclear as to whether the third party witness saw or heard the sale at issue and, in any event, the witness “was under indictment for [his] participation in [the sale].”
- concluding that disclosure was appropriate when the appellant sold narcotics on two occasions to an undercover officer, but the only eyewitness to the initial transaction other than the informant was a police officer
- “Only after a showing by the defendant that the information sought is material and the - 16 - J-S08034-25 request reasonable is the trial court called upon to exercise its discretion to determine whether the information is to be revealed”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NEWMAN, Justice,
concurring.
I am constrained to agree with the majority in this case. I write separately to emphasize that the majority’s holding should be strictly limited to situations, such as the present case, where a defendant demonstrates that the informant’s identity would materially aid in his or her defense, and where the Commonwealth presents no evidence at all to prove that disclosure of the informant’s identity would jeopardize his or her safety or compromise ongoing investigations. If any of these countervailing considerations are present, they weigh heavily against requiring the Commonwealth to disclose the confidential informant’s identity.