Austin v. Maricopa County Community College District

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that other courts have found informant’s participation “important, if not determinativef,] in warranting disclosure”
• rejecting as speculative claim that informant would impeach State police witness
• privilege applied even though officer’s description of defendant had minor mistakes where narcotic sale occurred in defendant’s house and not on street
• disclosure of informant's identity not required unless essential to defendant's preparation of his defense
• \The appropriate standard for reviewing ... a motion for disclosure is to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion after weighing the competing considerations of the balancing test.\
• \The appropriate standard for reviewing . . . a motion for disclosure is to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion after weighing the competing considerations of the balancing test.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).