CALIFORNIA DISCOVERY-DISCOVERY OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT NOT REQUIRED
disclosure of A confidential informant is not mandatory even when THE informant was percipient witness. This is outrageous. But according to this Court of Appeal, the court had duty to hold in camera hearing to determine if the confidential information can given exculpatory evidence. "[T]he balance between the public interest in protecting the flow of information to law enforcement officers and Davis's right to prepare his defense is struck by having an in camera hearing prior to any disclosure."
Really? So, rather than the 6th Amendment to confront the acusers, we have an "in camera" review where the judge says what? "Dear CI, now you would never 1) lie; 2) color the facts, or; 3) cover up for your friemds, would you?" CI: "Why, no, your honor. Never!".
It is well known that only through thorough cross examination does the truth come out. This case guts the truth-extracting process.
Davis v. Superior Court (B216345, Second Dist., 7/22/10) Cal.App.4th
