People v. Underwood
Michigan Supreme Court
1DissentBoyle, J.
I dissent from the majority’s decision to remand this case for in camera review. The majority’s remand is based on the conclusion that the confidential informant can provide information that is relevant and helpful to instructional and sentencing issues. Because the informant’s statement is not evidence essential to the defense presented by the defendant, I would affirm the Court of Appeals denial of disclosure of the informant’s identity. The in camera process in this case is unnecessary.
i
The issue before us is not disclosure of the contents of the confidential informant’s communication,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- United States v. BagleySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Roviaro v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Pennsylvania v. RitchieSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- United States v. Valenzuela-BernalSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- People v. StanawayMichigan Supreme Court · 1994
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.