When rights collide: Supreme Judicial Court tackles perfect storm of constitutional, legal conflicts
The Supreme Judicial Court ruled today that if a man up on drug charges wants to get the name of the informant he thinks set him up, he's going to have to let prosecutors see at least an edited version of the affidavit he submitted to a judge on the issue.
At least three separate rights collided in the case: Eric Shaughnessy's right to a fair trial (he argues he was entrapped by the informant, but he can't argue that without knowing his name), Shaughnessy's right against self incrimination (to prove to the judge he dealt with the informant, he had to supply information that prosecutors could use against him) and the prosecutors' right to shield the identity of informants not directly involved in an arrest (so they don't get targeted for attack).
The high court ruled a lower-court judge was correct to try to balance Shaughnessy's right to a fair trial with his right against self incrimination, but that he should not have allowed Shaughnessy's affidavit without letting prosecutors have a change to reply to the issues it raised. The court said the judge can protect Shaughnessy's right against self incrimination by giving prosecutors an edited copy - with any potentially incriminating information blacked out.
