US v. Amador-Galvan
9 F.3d 1414 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a defendant makes a threshold showing that a confidential informant's identity could be relevant and helpful to their defense, a district court abuses its discretion by not holding an in camera hearing to determine if disclosure is warranted under the Roviaro balancing test.
Facts:
- On April 27, 1988, U.S. Customs Inspector Rodolfo Molina, Jr. allowed a Ford LTD to pass through his primary inspection lane at the Douglas, Arizona Port of Entry.
- Molina described the driver as a young, light-complected 'gringo' who spoke perfect English and whom he recognized from previous crossings.
- A second inspector, George Campos, stopped the same car in the secondary inspection area because it fit a 'profile' for drug smuggling.
- When Campos asked the driver for his passport, the driver threw down his wallet and fled on foot back to Mexico.
- Agents discovered 661 pounds of cocaine in the vehicle's trunk.
- Campos described the driver differently than Molina, stating he was a Spanish-speaking Hispanic male, whom Campos had never seen before but was certain he could identify again.
- An investigation into Molina began due to the conflicting description and other suspicious activities.
- Approximately 28 months later, on August 22, 1990, Campos identified Jose Amador-Galvan as the driver from an informal photographic lineup conducted in Mexico.
Procedural Posture:
- Jose Amador-Galvan and Rodolfo Molina were indicted in U.S. District Court for conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
- Prior to trial, the defendants moved to compel disclosure of the identities of four confidential informants; the district court denied the motion.
- The defendants also moved to admit expert testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identification; the district court denied this motion as well.
- Following a joint jury trial, both Amador-Galvan and Molina were convicted.
- Amador-Galvan was sentenced to 188 months in prison, and Molina was sentenced to 327 months.
- Amador-Galvan and Molina (appellants) appealed their convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, challenging the district court's pretrial rulings.
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 a district court abuse its discretion by refusing to hold an in camera hearing to evaluate the potential testimony of confidential informants when a defendant has made a threshold showing that their information could be relevant and helpful to the defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Ferguson, J.
Yes, a district court abuses its discretion by refusing to hold an in camera hearing under these circumstances. The court must hold such a hearing where the defendant demonstrates that the informant's information would be 'relevant and helpful.' The government's privilege to withhold an informant's identity is qualified and must be balanced against the defendant's right to prepare a defense. The defendant needs only to show more than a 'mere suspicion' that the informant has helpful information to trigger the need for an in camera hearing. Here, the government's entire case against Amador-Galvan rested on his identification as the driver; therefore, any information from the four informants that could weaken that identification would be 'relevant and helpful.' The district court erred by denying the motion without first conducting an in camera review. Additionally, the court erred by excluding expert testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identification under the outdated 'Frye' test, and on remand must reconsider its admissibility under the new 'Daubert' standard, which assesses whether the testimony is based on scientifically valid reasoning that will assist the trier of fact.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the procedural safeguards for defendants when the government relies on confidential informants. It clarifies that the threshold for triggering an in camera hearing is low, preventing trial courts from summarily denying access to potentially exculpatory evidence without private judicial review. The opinion also marks a key application of the then-recent Daubert standard, signaling a shift in federal courts toward a more flexible, reliability-focused gatekeeping role for judges regarding expert scientific testimony. This has had a lasting impact on the admissibility of expert testimony on topics like the fallibility of eyewitness identification, which was previously often excluded under the more rigid Frye 'general acceptance' test.
