An undercover officer is testifying in favour of the prosecution. He provides information that was obtained from an anonymous witness. During the cross examination by the defence, the defence attorney asks for the informants identity. The judge over rules the District Attorney's objection and orders the officer to comply to avoid contempt of court charges. If placed in the officer's position, I would choose either of the following options.
Claiming the Rules of Evidence would be my first choice. The Rule of Privilege can be applied under the Rules of Evidence. As an officer of the law, I may choose to decline in revealing the identity of the informant. This is because the subdivision or state or any officer under the United States may apply this privilege in the court. The judge can therefore be compelled to overturn the contempt order if the District Attorney' supports this point of argument from the stand. As an undercover officer , I can claim this privilege because I can be judged as a representative or agent of the public entity. This choice may or may not sit well with the judge. The judges discretion will determine the next course of action.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The second choice would be to demonstrate that the informant's identity is not vital to the evidence. This will be done by supporting the evidence provided with certified affidavits from the informant. The prosecution may then be required to demonstrate reasonable probability with regards to the identity. The defence may request for a continuance to give the prosecution sufficient time to gather all the required information from the affidavits. If the information in the affidavits is not sufficient, then the court will rule in the interest of justice. In either case, as the undercover officer, the final decision made must be in compliance with the court.
