Roviaro exception in Florida

2016The Roviaro analysis, followed by Florida courts, 12 does not create a “fixed rule,” but encourages courts to strike a balance between “the public interest in protecting the flow of information [and] the individual’s right to prepare his defense.” Id. at 62 , 77 S.Ct. 623 .

2016The Roviaro analysis, followed by Florida courts, 12 does not create a “fixed rule,” but encourages courts to strike a balance between “the public interest in protecting the flow of information [and] the individual’s right to prepare his defense.” Id. at 62 , 77 S.Ct. 623 .

2002It has accordingly been held that disclosure of a confidential informant is absolutely required where the defendant is charged with selling or delivering illegal drugs to the subject informant, Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 , 77 S.Ct. 623 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957); Monserrate v. State, 232 So.2d 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)....

2002It has accordingly been held that disclosure of a confidential informant is absolutely required where the defendant is charged with selling or delivering illegal drugs to the subject informant, Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 , 77 S.Ct. 623 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957); Monserrate v. State, 232 So.2d 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)....

1990In Treverrow v. State, 194 So.2d 250 (Fla. 1967), the Florida Supreme Court incorporated the Roviaro standard, also noting that since the state has the privilege of nondisclosure, the burden is on the defendant claiming an exception to the rule to show why he is entitled to disclosure.

1990In Treverrow v. State, 194 So.2d 250 (Fla. 1967), the Florida Supreme Court incorporated the Roviaro standard, also noting that since the state has the privilege of nondisclosure, the burden is on the defendant claiming an exception to the rule to show why he is entitled to disclosure.

2013When a defendant succeeds in meeting the “initial burden of showing that disclosure is necessary to a specific defense, the trial court should hold an in camera hearing to determine, in fact, whether the disclosure would be relevant and helpful to the defense.” LaBron, 24 So.3d at 717 (quoting Roberts, 686 So.2d at 723 ); see also Zamora, 534 So.2d at 869 (explaining that in camera review has been confined exclusively to the first alternative component of the Roviaro exception).

2013When a defendant succeeds in meeting the “initial burden of showing that disclosure is necessary to a specific defense, the trial court should hold an in camera hearing to determine, in fact, whether the disclosure would be relevant and helpful to the defense.” LaBron, 24 So.3d at 717 (quoting Roberts, 686 So.2d at 723 ); see also Zamora, 534 So.2d at 869 (explaining that in camera review has been confined exclusively to the first alternative component of the Roviaro exception).

1996Hawkins v. State, 312 So.2d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); State v. Davis, 308 So.2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Doe v. State, 262 So.2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).

1996Garcia v. State, 548 So.2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); see also Zamora, 534 So.2d at 868 -69 (quoting State v. Acosta, 439 So.2d 1024 , 1027 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)). *1345 Appellee Ubillus's failure to set forth a valid defense, on the other hand, is sufficient alone to defeat his ability to seek disclosure of the tipster under the first Roviaro exception.

1996Hawkins v. State, 312 So.2d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); State v. Davis, 308 So.2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Doe v. State, 262 So.2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).

1988It has accordingly been held that disclosure of a confidential informant is absolutely required where the defendant is charged with selling or delivering illegal drugs to the subject informant, Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 , 77 S.Ct. 623 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957); Monserrate v. State, 232 So.2d 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970), or where the state calls the confidential informant as a witness at trial, Hassberger v. State, 350 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1977), or where the informant executes the affidavit upon which a search warrant is issued for the search of the defendant's home, Baker v. State, 150 So.2d 729

1988It has accordingly been held that disclosure of a confidential informant is absolutely required where the defendant is charged with selling or delivering illegal drugs to the subject informant, Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 , 77 S.Ct. 623 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957); Monserrate v. State, 232 So.2d 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970), or where the state calls the confidential informant as a witness at trial, Hassberger v. State, 350 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1977), or where the informant executes the affidavit upon which a search warrant is issued for the search of the defendant's home, Baker v. State, 150 So.2d 729

1988It has accordingly been held that disclosure of a confidential informant is absolutely required where the defendant is charged with selling or delivering illegal drugs to the subject informant, Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 , 77 S.Ct. 623 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957); Monserrate v. State, 232 So.2d 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970), or where the state calls the confidential informant as a witness at trial, Hassberger v. State, 350 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1977), or where the informant executes the affidavit upon which a search warrant is issued for the search of the defendant's home, Baker v. State, 150 So.2d 729

1988It has accordingly been held that disclosure of a confidential informant is absolutely required where the defendant is charged with selling or delivering illegal drugs to the subject informant, Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 , 77 S.Ct. 623 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957); Monserrate v. State, 232 So.2d 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970), or where the state calls the confidential informant as a witness at trial, Hassberger v. State, 350 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1977), or where the informant executes the affidavit upon which a search warrant is issued for the search of the defendant's home, Baker v. State, 150 So.2d 729

1988There is further authority that a trial court is precluded from dismissing an information or indictment without first ordering an in camera review of the informant's testimony to determine whether the said testimony is relevant and helpful to a defense of the accused, State v. Jimenez, 428 So.2d 356 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Williams, 369 So.2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA *871 1979); obviously, this requirement only applies where the defendant seeks disclosure under the first component of the Roviaro exception.

1988There is further authority that a trial court is precluded from dismissing an information or indictment without first ordering an in camera review of the informant's testimony to determine whether the said testimony is relevant and helpful to a defense of the accused, State v. Jimenez, 428 So.2d 356 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Williams, 369 So.2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA *871 1979); obviously, this requirement only applies where the defendant seeks disclosure under the first component of the Roviaro exception.

1988There is further authority that a trial court is precluded from dismissing an information or indictment without first ordering an in camera review of the informant's testimony to determine whether the said testimony is relevant and helpful to a defense of the accused, State v. Jimenez, 428 So.2d 356 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Williams, 369 So.2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA *871 1979); obviously, this requirement only applies where the defendant seeks disclosure under the first component of the Roviaro exception.

1988There is further authority that a trial court is precluded from dismissing an information or indictment without first ordering an in camera review of the informant's testimony to determine whether the said testimony is relevant and helpful to a defense of the accused, State v. Jimenez, 428 So.2d 356 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Williams, 369 So.2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA *871 1979); obviously, this requirement only applies where the defendant seeks disclosure under the first component of the Roviaro exception.

1988In each of these cases, the courts have implicitly concluded that the disclosure of the informant was an essential part of the defendant's due process right to be *870 informed of the charges against him or to cross examine the witnesses against him. [5] On the other hand, the Florida courts have consistently denied disclosure under this second component of the Roviaro exception where the sole showing for said disclosure was that the informant, as here, was merely present during the illegal drug transaction with which the defendant was charged, and accordingly was a witness thereto, Doe v. Sta

1988In each of these cases, the courts have implicitly concluded that the disclosure of the informant was an essential part of the defendant's due process right to be *870 informed of the charges against him or to cross examine the witnesses against him. [5] On the other hand, the Florida courts have consistently denied disclosure under this second component of the Roviaro exception where the sole showing for said disclosure was that the informant, as here, was merely present during the illegal drug transaction with which the defendant was charged, and accordingly was a witness thereto, Doe v. Sta

1988In each of these cases, the courts have implicitly concluded that the disclosure of the informant was an essential part of the defendant's due process right to be *870 informed of the charges against him or to cross examine the witnesses against him. [5] On the other hand, the Florida courts have consistently denied disclosure under this second component of the Roviaro exception where the sole showing for said disclosure was that the informant, as here, was merely present during the illegal drug transaction with which the defendant was charged, and accordingly was a witness thereto, Doe v. Sta

1988In each of these cases, the courts have implicitly concluded that the disclosure of the informant was an essential part of the defendant's due process right to be *870 informed of the charges against him or to cross examine the witnesses against him. [5] On the other hand, the Florida courts have consistently denied disclosure under this second component of the Roviaro exception where the sole showing for said disclosure was that the informant, as here, was merely present during the illegal drug transaction with which the defendant was charged, and accordingly was a witness thereto, Doe v. Sta

1983As stated in United States v. Freund, 525 F.2d 873, 877 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 923 , 96 S.Ct. 2631 , 49 L.Ed.2d 377 (1976): In Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165 , 89 S.Ct. 961 , 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969), the United States Supreme Court indicated that the in camera procedure was an acceptable device to aid the trial court in its application of the Roviaro test.[4] [4] "In both the volume of the material to be examined and the complexity and difficulty of the judgments involved, cases involving electronic surveillance will probably differ markedly from those situations in the crim

1983As stated in United States v. Freund, 525 F.2d 873, 877 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 923 , 96 S.Ct. 2631 , 49 L.Ed.2d 377 (1976): In Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165 , 89 S.Ct. 961 , 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969), the United States Supreme Court indicated that the in camera procedure was an acceptable device to aid the trial court in its application of the Roviaro test.[4] [4] "In both the volume of the material to be examined and the complexity and difficulty of the judgments involved, cases involving electronic surveillance will probably differ markedly from those situations in the crim

1983As stated in United States v. Freund, 525 F.2d 873, 877 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 923 , 96 S.Ct. 2631 , 49 L.Ed.2d 377 (1976): In Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165 , 89 S.Ct. 961 , 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969), the United States Supreme Court indicated that the in camera procedure was an acceptable device to aid the trial court in its application of the Roviaro test.[4] [4] "In both the volume of the material to be examined and the complexity and difficulty of the judgments involved, cases involving electronic surveillance will probably differ markedly from those situations in the crim

1983As stated in United States v. Freund, 525 F.2d 873, 877 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 923 , 96 S.Ct. 2631 , 49 L.Ed.2d 377 (1976): In Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165 , 89 S.Ct. 961 , 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969), the United States Supreme Court indicated that the in camera procedure was an acceptable device to aid the trial court in its application of the Roviaro test.[4] [4] "In both the volume of the material to be examined and the complexity and difficulty of the judgments involved, cases involving electronic surveillance will probably differ markedly from those situations in the crim

1978Whether a proper balance renders nondisclosure erroneous must depend upon the particular circumstances of each case, taking into consideration the crime charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer's testimony, and other relevant factors." (emphasis supplied) In Treverrow v. State, 194 So.2d 250 (Fla. 1967), the Supreme Court of Florida emphasized the Roviaro requirement that consideration be given to "the possible significance of the informer's testimony" and listed a number of factors, stated in an earlier opinion of the District Court of Appeal, Second District,

1977Nonetheless in attempting to apply the Roviaro test to the case before us we are in the same position as confronted the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, in United States v. Fischer, 531 F.2d 783 (5th Cir.1976), wherein the court said: [W]e are unable to conclude from this record that the informer's participation was such that fairness to the defendant would require disclosure and production regardless of any showing the government could make in opposition.

1977Nonetheless in attempting to apply the Roviaro test to the case before us we are in the same position as confronted the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, in United States v. Fischer, 531 F.2d 783 (5th Cir.1976), wherein the court said: [W]e are unable to conclude from this record that the informer's participation was such that fairness to the defendant would require disclosure and production regardless of any showing the government could make in opposition.