You answered my question with your own. If this “alleged” tip is false it could still lead to the probable cause to gather other evidence. You are correct that the person would not have to testify. Convictions are not the same as arrests. It is still very costly to fight charges.
Again, follow the money. If this person is paid, as are most Crimestoppers Units, who is he/she to decide what they turn over. This is the same as some recent cases where Lab Directors have falsified evidence and thousands of cases are overturned. Should those Lab people make a rule they don’t have to give information to a Judge?
If the person is never going to have to testify, what is the reason to see their name on the note?
No, they didn’t need to see it.
Paid our not, as I understand it there is a contract between the person giving the information and Crimestoppes that the name of the informant will be withheld.
If those contracts are illegal, it should be established in a court of law.