Diblasio v. Keane

The Kings County District Attorney appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Jack B. Weinstein, Judge) granting Mario DiBlasios petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on the grounds that the prosecutions failure to identify or produce, in response to DiBlasios requests, a confidential informant who had arranged for drug sales between DiBlasio and undercover police officers violated DiBlasios due process rights. The District Attorney argues that DiBlasio failed to demonstrate circumstances that would warrant discarding the informants traditional veil of confidentiality, noting that the informants testimony as a witness to the crime was unnecessary as his participation in the sales was minimal and the transactions were tape recorded, and DiBlasios entrapment defense, which he claimed the informant could corroborate, was highly speculative. We reject these contentions, and agree with Judge Weinstein that, although the informants testimony was not necessary as a witness to the crime itself, it became necessary when DiBlasio testified to facts which, if believed, would constitute a defense of entrapment and entrapment was in fact charged to the jury.