News (Media Awareness Project) - US WI: Appeals Court Rejects Witness, Restores Drug Charges |
Title: | US WI: Appeals Court Rejects Witness, Restores Drug Charges |
Published On: | 2001-09-06 |
Source: | Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (WI) |
Fetched On: | 2008-01-25 08:41:29 |
APPEALS COURT REJECTS WITNESS, RESTORES DRUG CHARGES
WAUSAU (AP) -- A judge wrongly dismissed drug charges against a man after
ruling that prosecutors had to produce a police informant for the judge to
question, the state Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday.
Bruce Knutson of Merrill failed to show that the confidential informant had
testimony that was necessary for Knutson's defense, the 3rd District Court
of Appeals panel said.
The three-judge panel restored charges accusing Knutson of conspiracy to
obtain cocaine with intent to deliver, possession of cocaine with intent to
deliver within 1,000 feet of a federally funded housing project and
possession of marijuana.
According to court records, Knutson was arrested in January 2000 after an
anonymous caller told a Crime Stoppers hotline that Knutson and a companion
were traveling to Milwaukee to buy at least $2,000 worth of cocaine.
Police staked out the Merrill home where the caller said the men would
return after the trip to Milwaukee, and a search of their vehicle found
cocaine and marijuana, court records say.
Knutson pleaded not guilty to the charges and sought disclosure of the
informant's identity.
Prosecutors declined to waive the informant's right to remain anonymous
under state law, and Lincoln County Circuit Judge Glenn Hartley ordered the
state to produce the informant for Hartley to question.
The judge decided that the informant's call had so much detailed
information that the informant may also have had information that Knutson
was not involved in the drug deal or was a lesser player, court records say.
Prosecutors submitted only an affidavit from a Merrill police officer with
personal knowledge of the informant's identity, and Hartley dismissed the
charges against Knutson. The state appealed.
In reinstating the charges Wednesday, the Court of Appeals said Knutson
"offered nothing" to indicate what evidence the informant had that was
necessary for a fair trial or could create reasonable doubt for a jury.
WAUSAU (AP) -- A judge wrongly dismissed drug charges against a man after
ruling that prosecutors had to produce a police informant for the judge to
question, the state Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday.
Bruce Knutson of Merrill failed to show that the confidential informant had
testimony that was necessary for Knutson's defense, the 3rd District Court
of Appeals panel said.
The three-judge panel restored charges accusing Knutson of conspiracy to
obtain cocaine with intent to deliver, possession of cocaine with intent to
deliver within 1,000 feet of a federally funded housing project and
possession of marijuana.
According to court records, Knutson was arrested in January 2000 after an
anonymous caller told a Crime Stoppers hotline that Knutson and a companion
were traveling to Milwaukee to buy at least $2,000 worth of cocaine.
Police staked out the Merrill home where the caller said the men would
return after the trip to Milwaukee, and a search of their vehicle found
cocaine and marijuana, court records say.
Knutson pleaded not guilty to the charges and sought disclosure of the
informant's identity.
Prosecutors declined to waive the informant's right to remain anonymous
under state law, and Lincoln County Circuit Judge Glenn Hartley ordered the
state to produce the informant for Hartley to question.
The judge decided that the informant's call had so much detailed
information that the informant may also have had information that Knutson
was not involved in the drug deal or was a lesser player, court records say.
Prosecutors submitted only an affidavit from a Merrill police officer with
personal knowledge of the informant's identity, and Hartley dismissed the
charges against Knutson. The state appealed.
In reinstating the charges Wednesday, the Court of Appeals said Knutson
"offered nothing" to indicate what evidence the informant had that was
necessary for a fair trial or could create reasonable doubt for a jury.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...