NJ Milligan adv. State: NJ Confidential Informant Disclosure

Milligan v. State: NJ Confidential Informant Disclosure

In criminal cases, the issue of disclosing a confidential informant’s identity often arises. Defendants want access to the name to assess the informant’s credibility or determine if they were entrapped. But prosecutors fear exposing the informant or compromising ongoing investigations.

A landmark New Jersey Supreme Court case – Milligan v. State – established the legal standards governing confidential informant disclosure in NJ courts. This article examines the Milligan decision and its implications for defendants seeking access to confidential informants.

The Milligan v. State Case

In Milligan, the defendant was charged with drug offenses after allegedly selling marijuana to an undercover officer. An unnamed confidential informant had introduced the officer to the defendant to set up the deal[1].

The defendant requested disclosure of the informant’s identity. The trial court denied the request, and the defendant was later convicted at trial. But the NJ Supreme Court reversed the conviction on appeal.

In its decision, the Court ruled defendants have a right to confidential informant disclosure if it is “relevant and helpful” to the defense or “essential to a fair determination” of guilt. This established a new balancing test for NJ courts to apply in these situations[1].

The Milligan Balancing Test Factors

Under Milligan v. State, NJ courts must balance these factors when deciding whether to order disclosure[2]:

• The extent of the informant’s role in the alleged crime
• The directness of the relationship between the defendant’s claim and the probable testimony of the informant
• Other evidence corroborating the informant’s probable testimony
• The validity of the informant’s probable testimony
• The significance of the informant’s probable testimony

If the balance of factors favors disclosure, prosecutors must reveal the informant’s identity or potentially see charges dismissed.

Applying the Milligan Test

The Milligan balancing test gives courts discretion based on the circumstances of each case. Some key patterns emerge in its application[3]:

• Disclosure more likely if informant was eyewitness or active participant
• Disclosure less likely if informant merely provided tips
• Disclosure more likely if defendant raises entrapment defense
• Disclosure less likely if informant testimony seems irrelevant

The informant’s level of involvement is often pivotal in weighing the Milligan factors.

Prosecution Strategies to Avoid Disclosure

To prevent being compelled to reveal an informant’s identity, prosecutors may[4]:

• Avoid using informants as key witnesses
• Corroborate informant tips through other evidence
• Offer evidence minimizing the informant’s role
• Argue disclosure would jeopardize larger investigations

If disclosure seems inevitable, the state may also voluntarily dismiss charges rather than expose an informant.

Defense Strategies to Obtain Disclosure

Defense attorneys can argue for disclosure by[5]:

• Filing a motion asserting the Milligan balancing factors
• Highlighting gaps in the state’s evidence about the informant’s role
• Raising credibility questions about the informant
• Claiming the informant entrapped the defendant

The more uncertainty about the informant, the more disclosure tends to help the defense.

Limits of the Milligan Decision

While significant, Milligan does have limits. It does not require disclosure when[6]:

• Informant simply provides background information
• Informant arranges drug deal but does not witness it
• Identity offers no significant exculpatory value
• Other evidence strongly establishes guilt

The decision also does not apply to search warrant affidavits relying on unnamed informants.

Subsequent Changes to NJ Confidential Informant Law

In the wake of Milligan v. State, further developments regarding confidential informants occurred in NJ:

• Court rules now require more disclosure about informants at certain hearings
• Additional limits placed on prosecutors granting informants leniency
• Standards tightened for police use of juvenile informants
• Juries may be told if informant’s identity kept confidential

So while Milligan was a landmark decision, NJ law on informants continues evolving.

Disclosure in Federal Courts

The Milligan test only applies to NJ state courts. In federal court, informant disclosure is governed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roviaro decision. Roviaro established a similar balancing test for judges to apply.

But significant differences remain between federal and NJ state law on disclosure. Experienced local counsel is key in NJ cases.

Seeking Disclosure Early is Crucial

The timing of seeking disclosure is critical. Milligan motions should be filed early, before indictment if possible. Waiting until trial is often too late.

Early disclosure allows more time to investigate the informant’s background and credibility. It also enables stronger entrapment defenses.

Consult an Attorney if Facing Informant Allegations

If charged based on an unnamed informant’s claims, immediately consult a criminal defense attorney. An experienced lawyer can advise if pursuing disclosure under Milligan may aid your defense.

Skilled counsel will aggressively leverage Milligan and craft compelling arguments tailored to the unique facts of your case. Having an attorney in your corner levels the playing field when informants are involved.