The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Dings, 56 F.3d 74 (9th Cir. 1995):
The denial of a motion to compel the disclosure of a confidential informant is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Williams, 898 F.2d 1400, 1402 (9th Cir. 1990). "The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating the need for disclosure, and a mere suspicion that the information will prove helpful will not suffice." Id. (citation omitted). Dings filed nothing in support of his motion to compel disclosure of the confidential informant's identity. When asked by the district court if he wished to be heard on his motion, Dings was silent. He therefore failed to carry his initial burden. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.