camera hearing in Minnesota

2016“All that is needed to justify an in camera inquiry is a minimal showing of a basis for inquiry but 9 something more than mere speculation by the defendant that examination of the informant might be helpful.” State v. Moore, 438 N.W.2d 101, 106 (Minn. 1989).

2014But the supreme court has held that it is inappropriate to disclose the identity of a confidential informant or to hold an in camera inquiry only “to allow defense counsel to conduct a 3 fishing expedition in the hope of discovering other possible misrepresentations on which to attack probable cause for the warrant.” State v. Moore, 438 N.W.2d 101, 106 (Minn. 1989). “[C]ourts should not require in camera disclosure solely on the basis of speculation by the defendant that the informant’s testimony might be helpful.

2002When the informant is an eyewitness to the crime, an in camera hearing is appropriate to determine whether "there is a reasonable probability that the informer's testimony is necessary to a fair determination of guilt or innocence." 3 Weinstein & Berger, supra, § 510.07(5), at 510-17, quoted in Syrovatka v. State, 278 N.W.2d 558, 562 (Minn.1979).

2002When the informant is an eyewitness to the crime, an in camera hearing is appropriate to determine whether “there is a reasonable probability that the informer’s testimony is necessary to a fair determination of guilt or innocence.” 3 Wein-stein & Berger, supra, § 510.07(5), at 510-17, quoted in Syrovatka v. State, 278 N.W.2d 558, 562 (Minn.1979).

2014And because appellant failed to make the lesser showing to support his argument that the district court should have held an in camera hearing, appellant cannot satisfy the “ultimate burden of proving that disclosure of the informant’s identity is necessary.” See Wessels, 424 N.W.2d at 574-75 (noting that defendant’s burden to establish the need for an in camera hearing “is somewhat lighter than the defendant’s ultimate burden of proving that disclosure of the informant’s identity is necessary”).

2014A defendant can establish a basis for an in camera inquiry “by making a prima facie showing challenging the veracity of a search warrant, or by making a prima facie showing that the informant may be a material witness at trial.” State v. Wessels, 424 N.W.2d 572, 575 (Minn. App. 1988), review denied (Minn. July 6, 1988).

2014“If the defendant fails to meet this burden but is able to establish a basis for inquiry by the court, then the court should hold an in camera hearing to consider affidavits or to interview the informant in person.” State v. Ford, 322 N.W.2d 611, 614 (Minn. 1982).

2008Ford, 322 N.W.2d at 614 ; see also State v. Moore, 438 N.W.2d 101, 106 (Minn.1989) (noting that there is a “lesser burden of establishing a basis for inquiry by the court in an in camera hearing” than that required to support a disclosure order).

1991See Lenorud, 412 N.W.2d at 817-18 ; see also Rothstein, 422 N.W.2d at 302-03 (defendant must make a prima facie showing of entrapment to warrant an in camera hearing).

1988Here, the state has thus shown an in camera hearing “significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.” Lenorud, 412 N.W.2d at 818 .

2002Where the informant is merely a transmitter of information rather than an active participant in or material witness to the crime, however, disclosure is generally not required, State v. Houle, 257 N.W.2d 320, 323 (Minn.1977), and mere speculation that the informant may have framed the defendant does not, by itself, warrant disclosure.

2002Where the informant is merely a transmitter of information rather than an active participant in or material witness to the crime, however, disclosure is generally not required, State v. Houle, 257 N.W.2d 320, 323 (Minn.1977), and mere speculation that the informant may have framed the defendant does not, by itself, warrant disclosure.

1997State v. Shoop, 441 N.W.2d 475, 481 (Minn.1989).

1991See Lenorud, 412 N.W.2d at 817-18 ; see also Rothstein, 422 N.W.2d at 302-03 (defendant must make a prima facie showing of entrapment to warrant an in camera hearing).

1984The trial court held an in camera hearing and found the requirements of State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 178-79 , 149 N.W.2d 281, 284-85 (1967), were met.

1984The trial court held an in camera hearing and found the requirements of State v. Billstrom, 276 Minn. 174, 178-79 , 149 N.W.2d 281, 284-85 (1967), were met.