That does come to mind. And, there are possible real concerns there too.
Still, according to the Morton Act, it looks to me like prosecution cannot entirely shield an undercover officer's name and reports from defense attorneys, although the names and personal particulars need be kept from defendants themselves, with this being the case even if an undercover agent's reports are not planned on being used directly by the prosecution.
It doesn't matter anymore...even according to Renya (which aspect I find to be rather delicious!)
Strange law, huh?
Not really. Florida has similar requirements in code of criminal procedure.
My thought is defense counsel don't get a list of literally all confidential informants, just those that are associated with a person charged. The issue of "use" is decided by "charge or not." If an informant is in the accused file, and the accused is charged, then the informant is disclosed. But either "no charge," or "informant not in accused file" keeps the informant from being disclosed.
I’ve wondered if one of the handguns found in the toilet belonged to a felon CI.
Remember how originally the official story was the altercation began inside - - in the men’s room - before that story was no longer operative?
Of course that falsehood supported the story that the Twin Peaks management was non-cooperative?
Anyone want to hazard a guess why the lawsuits between Twin Peaks operator and Twin Peaks franchisor were voluntarily dismissed?
Have you seen anything about that in the MSM?
It was front page at one point. Much coverage.
Ha! Maybe Gator has the scoop?