CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT CASE LAW TRIAL
We granted certification limited to the following issue: “Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the trial court's order requiring the state to disclose the identity of a confidential informant?” State v. With the permission of the trial court, 5 the state appealed to the Appellate Court, which concluded that the trial court properly had ordered disclosure. 4 Following the state's failure to comply with the trial court's order to disclose the identity of a confidential informant, the court dismissed the charges against the defendant. The defendant, Cesareo Hernandez, was charged with possession of narcotics with intent to sell by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278 (b), 1 possession of narcotics with intent to sell within 1500 feet of a school in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278a (b), 2 conspiracy to sell narcotics by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 (a) 3 and 21a-278 (b), conspiracy to sell narcotics within 1500 feet of a school in violation of §§ 53a-48 (a) and 21a-278a (b), and possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of General Statutes § 21a-267 (a). Bayer, Hartford, for the appellee (defendant). Taylor, supervisory state's attorney, for the appellant (state). Longstreth, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were James E. Decided: October 10, 2000īefore McDONALD, C.J., and BORDEN, NORCOTT, KATZ and PALMER, Js.Ĭarolyn K. You have the burden of proof to show evidence if you think that entrapment occurred in your case.STATE of Connecticut v. If you believe you accidentally admitted criminal activity to an informant or undercover officer, or if you face charges based on speaking to one of these individuals, you have the right to defend yourself against the charges in court. A confidential informant may wear a wire, which means they taped your conversation and it can become evidence in the court case against you.
This holds true even if you merely admit to committing a crime and the person did not witness you commit a crime. You can face an arrest based on the information provided by a confidential informant or undercover officer. You can also argue entrapment if an undercover officer or confidential informant leads you to believe that the conduct in question is not actually illegal. In fact, Pennsylvania only recognizes entrapment if the officer or informant encouraged the offender to commit actions that he or she otherwise would not have done. Many people mistakenly believe that they can use entrapment as a defense if an undercover officer has evidence of a crime. Review the facts about the use of these individuals to seek criminal information in Pennsylvania and steps to take if you face this situation. In this case, can the prosecution use that information in a criminal case against you? While law enforcement cannot force you to incriminate yourself in Pennsylvania, you may inadvertently do so when talking to an undercover officer or confidential police informant.
0 kommentar(er)
