People v. Gilmore, 66 N.Y.2d 742 (1985)
A trial court need not compel the prosecution to produce a confidential informant if the defendant’s request appears to be a trial strategy ploy rather than a genuine effort to present relevant, helpful testimony, and the informant’s role in the crime was minor.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that the trial court did not err in refusing to compel the prosecution to produce a confidential informant. The informant was known to the defendant, and the defense learned early in the trial that the prosecution wouldn’t call her. The defendant then absented himself from the trial. The Court of Appeals emphasized that requests for informant production must be evaluated to determine if it’s a genuine need or a trial strategy. Here, the timing of the request and the defendant’s absence suggested the latter. Furthermore, the defendant failed to specify the exculpatory testimony expected from the informant, and her role in the drug sales was minor.
Facts
A confidential informant, Avis Burns, introduced the defendant, Gilmore, to an undercover officer, leading to a $250 cocaine sale in Burns’ apartment on December 18, 1973. Burns was present during the transaction but in an adjoining room. A second sale occurred on January 22, 1974, at Burns’ workplace. The sale took place in the men’s room, outside Burns’ presence, though Gilmore placed a bag behind Burns’ purse before the sale. Burns had a prior narcotics arrest and faced a potential life sentence, giving her a possible motive to falsify testimony.
Procedural History
Gilmore was convicted of drug charges. Prior to the close of the People’s case, Gilmore’s attorney requested the production of the confidential informant, Avis Burns. The trial court denied the request. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, and Gilmore appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s request for the prosecution to produce a confidential informant, Avis Burns, for potential testimony.
Holding
No, because the timing and circumstances of the request suggested a trial strategy, the defendant failed to articulate the specific exculpatory testimony he expected, and the informant’s role in the drug sales was minor.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals considered the timing of the defense’s request for production, which occurred shortly before the close of the People’s case and after the defendant had absented himself from the trial. This timing, coupled with the failure to specify the relevant exculpatory testimony Burns could provide, suggested the request was a trial ploy. The court cited People v. Jenkins, 41 N.Y.2d 307 and People v. Goggins, 34 N.Y.2d 163, emphasizing the need to weigh whether the demand for the informant is a genuine attempt to elicit relevant testimony or merely a strategic maneuver. The court also noted that Burns’ involvement in the sales was minor. Regarding the first sale, while Gilmore argued Burns could testify about whether he knew the contents of the package, he did not present this argument to the trial court. The court stated her “testimony was hardly essential to a fair trial” (citing United States v. Turbide). The court also found that there was no real issue as to identification in this case. The court reasoned that the jury was aware of the possible sentences that Burns could have faced had she not cooperated with law enforcement.