Regarding John Doe confidential informants and Franks v. Delaware motion.....?

A judge denied out motion to supress evidence using a franks motion because he says the John Doe has to be a agent of the government. My lawyer says he is wrong but has not found anything to support this. Does anybody have any information that can help me?

Update:

If anybody has any cases that could prove this wrong, it would help very much. Thank you!

2 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    "John Doe" does not necessarily have to be an agent of the Government. He or she DOES need a classification of "reliability". That classification is usually established after several (sometimes as many as ten or more) successfully resolved cases with information supplied by "John Doe", have been established. Judges make this classification, at the recommendation of the investigating officer. The judge reviews the success history and makes his or her decision to accept "John Doe" as reliable. Once reliability is established, the investigating officer can usually get search warrants, etc, with just the word of the confidential informant ("John Doe"). I hope this helps.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • derf
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    our country's judicial system has checks and balances to protect its integrity. any accused is supposedly has the inalienably right to confront their accuser. i have no idea what F v. D motion is or what precedence it sets but if the judge is denying u the right 2 confront your accuser maybe he should be made to explain his decision before your states judicial review board . as for your public defender, remember he works for the state also and hence isn't going 2 rock any official boats fire him, citing him as ineffective counsel. he doesn't work for u. if u can't afford one try 2 get a court appointed lawyer not a state public defender. i would also contact the A.C.L.U. and see if they can help.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.