Opinion — United States v. Randle (Dkt. 74, C.D. Ill.)

Summary

An opinion by United States District Judge Colleen R. Lawless in United States of America v. Mark Randle, Case No. 20-cr-30060, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, filed January 17, 2025, ruling on the defendant's motion to disclose a confidential source (Doc. 71). The opinion describes the government's limited privilege to withhold the identity of a confidential source under Roviaro v. United States, which gives way when disclosure is relevant and helpful to the defense or essential to a fair determination of a cause. It concludes that Randle has not shown how disclosure would help his defense, that the privilege continues to apply, and denies the motion.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

3:20-cr-30060-CRL -20-cr-   -   #74   File iled: 01/17/25   P age 1of3 lo   E-FILED

                                                              Friday, 17 January, 2025 04:13:04 PM
                                                                     Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

                    IN: THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                    FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
                              SPRINGFIELD DIVISION

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              )
       Plaintiff,                       )
                                        )
  v.                                    )       Case No. 20-cr-30060
                                        )
 MARK RANDLE,                           )
       Defendant.                       )

                                      OPINION

 COLLEEN R. LAWLESS, United States District Judge:

       Before the Court is Defendant Mark Randle’s Motion to Disclose Confidential

Source (Doc. 71). Defendant seeks the disclosure of the identity of the confidential source

 (“CS”) on the basis that disclosure is essential to the presentation of his defense. In

response, the Government claims Defendant has not met the burden for disclosure.

       The Government has a limited privilege to withhold the identity of the CS, which

gives way if Defendant shows that disclosure “is relevant and helpful to the defense of

an accused, or is essential to a fair determination of a cause.” Roviaro v. United States, 353

U.S. 53, 59-61 (1957). In considering a motion for disclosure, courts must balance “the

public interest in protecting the flow of information against the individual's right to

prepare his defense.” Id. at 62. While a proper balance depends on the circumstances of

the case, a court should consider “the crime charged, the possible defenses, the possible

significance of the informer’s testimony, and other relevant factors.” Id.

      The role of the CS is an important consideration in determining whether his or her

identity must be disclosed. United States v. McDowell, 687 F.3d 904, 911 (7th Cir. 2012). “In

                                     Page 1 of 3

3:20-cr-30060-CRL #74 _ Filed: 01/17/25 Page 2of3

this context our cases describe two types of informants: a mere tipster— someone whose
only role was to provide the police with the relevant information that served as the
foundation for obtaining a search warrant and a transactional witness who participated
in the crime charged against the defendant or witnessed the event in question.” Id.
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The rationale for the privilege for “mere
tipsters” is stronger and the case for overriding it is generally weak. Id. If the CS performs
a transactional role in the investigation, “the case for overriding the privilege and
requiring disclosure may be stronger.” Id. The necessity of the CS’s testimony must be
established regardless of his or her role. Id. at 911-12 (denial of disclosure appropriate
when informant’s testimony would not have supported defendant's duress defense).
“The confidential informant privilege will not yield to permit a mere fishing expedition,
nor upon bare speculation that the information may possibly prove useful.” United States
v. Valles, 41 F.3d 355, 358 (7th Cir. 1994).

Defendant alleges the identity of the CS must be promptly disclosed because it is
essential to the preparation of the defense. (Doc. 72 at 1). While acknowledging the CS’s
existence and providing discovery documents containing the CS’s statement and overall
involvement, Defendant alleges the Government has otherwise provided no information
concerning the CS. (Id, at 2). Defendant claims the CS should be produced for an
interview because such individuals cannot be located by ordinary means, and the CS’s
testimony “will bear a direct relationship to a possible defense of entrapment, mere
presence, lack of intent, etc.” (Id.) Defendant states that “[t]he Government has failed to
articulate any valid reason for the non-disclosure of the witness.” (Id. at 4-5). In order to

Page 2 of 3

3:20-cr-30060-CRL #74 _ Filed: 01/17/25 Page 3of3

protect Defendant's due process rights, Defendant also requests the Court to hold an in-
camera hearing on Defendant's need for the CS’s identity and testimony. (Id. at 6).

It is apparent from the Government's recitation of the factual background that the
CS was a transactional witness. Thus, there may be a stronger case for overriding the
privilege than there would be if the CS were a “mere tipster.” The Government correctly
notes that it bears no obligation to provide a reason for asserting the privilege, which is
presumed to apply. Defendant’s bare assertion that the CS’s testimony will relate to
certain defenses is unsupported. The Government contends that, even if the CS’s
testimony would bear directly on defenses such as entrapment, mere presence and lack
of intent, the factual circumstances and statements surrounding the CS as disclosed in
discovery confirm the CS’s testimony would not support those defenses. Therefore, the
privilege has not been overcome to engage in a “fishing expedition.” Defendant has not
demonstrated how disclosure of the CS would be helpful to the defense or essential to a
fair determination of a cause. Based on the current record, the Court concludes that the
limited privilege continues to apply.

For the reasons stated herein, Defendant Mark Randle’s Motion to Disclose
Confidential Source [Doc. 71] is DENIED.

ENTER: January 17, 2025
4

Me

COL R. LAWLESS
ITED SVATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.ilcd.81444.74.0.pdf

Size

152,855 bytes

SHA-256

c59c054f50b8d08781118a4ae75d5caa4e287838b7b67d7a0cd4f127f51c0d88

Our copy

gov.uscourts.ilcd.81444.74.0.pdf