Roviaro v. U.S.
353 U.S. 53 (1957)
Rule of Law:
The government's privilege to withhold the identity of a confidential informant is not absolute and must give way 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. A court must balance the public interest in protecting the flow of information against the individual's right to prepare his defense.
Facts:
- Four law enforcement officers met with a confidential informant known as 'John Doe' in Chicago.
- The officers searched Doe and his Cadillac car, finding no narcotics, and one officer, Bryson, secreted himself in the trunk of the car.
- Doe drove to a designated location, followed by the other officers, where he met Albert Roviaro.
- Roviaro entered Doe's Cadillac and directed him on a circuitous route while engaging in a conversation about money and narcotics, which was overheard by the officer in the trunk.
- At Roviaro's direction, Doe stopped the car. Roviaro exited, walked to a nearby tree, retrieved a small package, and returned to the car.
- Officer Durham observed Roviaro make a motion as if depositing the package in the car before walking away.
- Durham immediately went to the Cadillac and recovered the package from the floor, which was later found to contain heroin.
- Later that night, officers arrested Roviaro at his home and confronted him with Doe, who then denied knowing or ever having seen Roviaro.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury in the Northern District of Illinois indicted Albert Roviaro on two narcotics counts.
- Prior to trial, Roviaro moved for a bill of particulars to learn the identity of the informant, 'John Doe,' which the U.S. District Court denied.
- Following a bench trial, the District Court found Roviaro guilty on both counts.
- Roviaro appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying disclosure.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the nondisclosure issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the government's privilege to withhold the identity of a confidential informant supersede a defendant's right to a fair trial when the informant was the sole participant, other than the accused, in the criminal transaction and could provide testimony helpful to the defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Burton
Yes. The government's privilege to withhold an informant's identity must give way when, as here, the informant was a direct and sole participant in the criminal transaction and their testimony is essential to a fair trial. The Court established a balancing test, weighing the public interest in protecting informants against the defendant's right to prepare a defense. This determination must be made on a case-by-case basis, considering the crime charged, possible defenses, and the potential significance of the informant's testimony. In this case, John Doe was more than a mere tipster; he was the sole participant with Roviaro in the transaction. His testimony was highly relevant and could have disclosed entrapment, cast doubt on Roviaro's identity, or shown that Roviaro lacked knowledge of the package's contents. Denying Roviaro the ability to call or interview this material witness was fundamentally unfair and constituted prejudicial error.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Clark
No. The government's privilege to withhold the informant's identity should not have been overcome because disclosure was not essential to the defense and would undermine necessary law enforcement tactics. The dissent argues that the use of informants is critical to combating the narcotics trade, and relaxing the nondisclosure policy jeopardizes their safety and effectiveness. The evidence strongly indicated that Roviaro already knew the informant's identity, making the demand for disclosure a mere trial tactic. Furthermore, Roviaro never raised a substantive defense like entrapment, for which the informant's testimony would be crucial. Given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, including Roviaro's possession of the drugs and his post-arrest statements, the failure to disclose the informant's name was, at most, harmless error.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the foundational 'Roviaro balancing test' for determining when the government must disclose a confidential informant's identity. It rejects an absolute privilege for the government, instead creating a flexible, fact-dependent standard that prioritizes a defendant's right to a fair trial. The case's significance lies in its distinction between informants who are mere 'tipsters' and those who are active participants in the crime; for the latter, the presumption in favor of disclosure is much stronger. This ruling provides a crucial tool for criminal defendants, especially in entrapment cases or where the informant is the only witness who can corroborate or contradict the government's version of events.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Roviaro v. U.S. (1957)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"