Com. v. Krider, F., Jr., 108 MDA 2017

Police used a confidential informant (CI) with a history of successful tips to arrange two controlled "buy-walk" heroin purchases from a person the CI identified as "Amir" at 652 Front Street.
On both September 22 and September 30, 2015, officers observed hand-to-hand contact between the CI and appellant; the CI delivered bundles later field-tested positive for heroin.
A search warrant for 652 Front Street recovered drug-packaging materials, a scale, a phone bill for the number the CI used, and paperwork addressed to appellant; no drugs were found on appellant at the time of the search.
Appellant was charged with two counts of possession with intent to deliver (heroin) and moved pretrial to compel disclosure of the CI’s identity, arguing the CI was the only person who could testify what was actually exchanged.
The trial court denied disclosure after an evidentiary hearing finding the CI’s identity was presumptively confidential and the defense had not overcome that presumption; appellant was later convicted by a jury and sentenced to 2.5–5 years’ imprisonment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by denying disclosure of CI’s identity	Disclosure not required; Commonwealth has qualified privilege to protect CI identity and public interest in informant confidentiality outweighs defendant’s need	Krider: CI was material and only witness who could exonerate him; request reasonable because officers did not see what was exchanged and there was no particularized danger to CI	Court affirmed denial: appellant met threshold showing that CI was material, but balancing favored non-disclosure due to informant safety and public interest in maintaining confidential informants

Commonwealth v. Belenky, 777 A.2d 483 (Pa. Super. 2001) (standard of review for CI disclosure and defendant’s burden to show reasonable probability informant could exonerate)
Commonwealth v. Roebuck, 681 A.2d 1279 (Pa. 1996) (circumstances where CI is sole eyewitness increases likelihood of disclosure)
Commonwealth v. Bing, 713 A.2d 56 (Pa. 1998) (recognizing qualified privilege to withhold informant identity)
Commonwealth v. McCulligan, 905 A.2d 983 (Pa. Super. 2006) (initial presumption favors confidentiality; court must balance interests)
Interest of D.B., 820 A.2d 820 (Pa. Super. 2003) (defendant must show materiality and reasonableness of request)
Commonwealth v. Hritz, 663 A.2d 775 (Pa. Super. 1995) (defendant must lay evidentiary foundation that informant possesses material, non-duplicative information)
Commonwealth v. Eicher, 605 A.2d 337 (Pa. Super. 1992) (no disclosure absent concrete corroboration beyond self-serving allegations)
Commonwealth v. Marsh, 997 A.2d 318 (Pa. 2010) (scope of balancing test and consideration of informant safety and ongoing investigations)
Commonwealth v. Jordan, 125 A.3d 55 (Pa. Super. 2015) (factors relevant to CI disclosure balancing inquiry)