Earl’s client was facing prison for allegedly selling methamphetamine to a confidential informant. Law enforcement’s use of a confidential informant to purchase controlled substances is commonly referred to as a “controlled buy.”
After reviewing the government’s evidence against his client, Earl saw that there were a number of holes. Earl knew that this entire case rested on the credibility of the confidential informant. They were the only one that could place his client at the scene of the alleged sale. Earl filed motions demanding the confidential informant’s entire case file. He wanted to know what the confidential informant received from law enforcement in exchange for participating in the controlled buy. Earl also wanted to know how many other times the confidential informant had performed work for law enforcement, what the confidential informant received for prior work, and how many times the confidential informant’s information led to arrests and convictions.
Earl knew that the confidential informant had an extensive criminal history which could be used against him at trial.
Shortly after filing his motion for disclosure of the confidential informant’s case file, Earl was notified that the government was dismissing the charge against his client, citing the same holes that Earl found in the government’s evidence. Earl’s client went from facing 98 months in prison to none.