USA v. AARON L. PITTS, JR., ET AL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V.
AARON L. PITTS, JR.,
Defendant
1 :24-CR-230-01
(JUDGE MANNION)
MEMORANDUM
Presently before the court 	is the defendant's motion to reveal the
identity 	of 	the 	confidential 	informant. 	(Doc. 	127). 	Upon 	review, 	the
defendant's motion will be DENIED.
On August 28, 2024, an indictment was filed charging the defendant
with conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§846 (Count 1); distribution of 50 grams or more of methamphetamine in
violation of 21 	U.S.C. 	§841 (a) (Counts 2-5 and 7); 	and possession with
intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21
U.S.C. §841 (a) (Count 6). 	In 	his motion , the defendant argues that all
counts of the indictment are based upon sales to a confidential informant
and/or are based around information provided by a confidential informant
to law enforcement. As argued by the defendant, the government should
be compelled to disclose the name of the confidential informant because it
1
Case 1:24-cr-00230-MEM Document 138 Filed 03/13/26 Page 1 of 5

is 	believed that any 	information obtained from the informant would 	be
exculpatory and necessary to a fair determination of the defendant's guilt
or innocence at trial. The defendant argues that, for each count of the
indictment, the confidential informant played an active and crucial role in
the events and was the sole witness to the transactions alleged 	in the
indictment.
With 	respect 	to 	the 	defendant's 	motion , 	"[c]ourts 	have 	long
recogn ized the government's right to withhold the identity of informants from
defendants." United States v. Gayle, 400 F. App'x 689, 691 (3d Cir. 2010)
(citing Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 (1957); see also McCray
v. State of Illinois, 386 U.S. 300, 309 (1967)). The privilege is qualified,
however, and it must give way if the informant's identity is "relevant and
helpful to the defense of the accused, or is essential to a fair determination
of a cause ." Roviaro , 353 U.S. at 61 . The defendant bears the burden of
showing a specific need for disclosure. United States v. Jiles , 658 F.2d 194,
197 	(3d 	Cir. 	1981 ). 	"[M]ere 	speculation 	as 	to 	the 	usefulness 	of the
informant's testimony to the defendant is insufficient to justify disclosure of
his identify." United States v. Bazzano, 712 F.2d 826, 839 (3d Cir. 1983);
see Jiles, 658 F.2d at 197.
2
Case 1:24-cr-00230-MEM Document 138 Filed 03/13/26 Page 2 of 5

There is no fixed rule for when disclosure is necessary, and if the
defendant sets forth a specific need for disclosure of an informant's identity,
the 	court 	must 	balance 	the 	public 	interest 	in 	protecting 	the 	flow 	of
information against the defendant's right to prepare his defense. Jiles, 658
F.2d at 196; Roviaro, 353 U.S. at 62 . In balancing these interests, the court
considers 	the 	offense 	charged 	and 	possible 	defenses, 	the 	potential
significance of the informant's testimony and whether it is highly relevant,
whether the testimony will disclose evidence of entrapment or raise doubts
regarding the defendant's identity, and whether the informant was the sole
participant other than the accused in the crime charged. See Jiles, 658 F.2d
at 197-99. District courts have "substantial leeway" to "determine on a case-
by-case basis" whether disclosure is appropriate. United States v. Brown ,
3 F.3d 673, 679 (3d Cir. 1993); see United States v. Goode, 486 Fed. App'x
261 , 264 (3d Cir. 2012).
In considering the pending motion, the defendant bears the burden of
showing a specific need for the disclosure of the identity of the confidential
informant. Jiles, 658 F.2d at 197. The defendant has made no such showing
here. The fact that the defendant "believe[s] that any information obtained
from 	the 	informant 	would 	be 	exculpatory 	and 	necessary 	to 	a 	fair
determination of the defendant's guilt or innocence at trial" is speculative.
3
Case 1:24-cr-00230-MEM Document 138 Filed 03/13/26 Page 3 of 5

Speculation is insufficient to meet his burden for disclosure. 	See United
States v. Rivera, 524 F. App'x 821 , 827 (3d Cir. 2013).
Moreover, to the extent that the defendant argues that the confidential
informant played an active and crucial role in the events and was the sole
witness to the transactions alleged 	in 	the indictment, the government's
materials provide that there are two substantive charges, Count 2 which
occurred on November 21 , 2023, and Count 3 which occurred on November
30 , 2023, wherein the confidential informant was not the sole witness to the
events and the confidential informant's testimony is not the only evidence
supporting the defendant's participation 	in the transactions. 	For the two
transactions which occurred on December 7, 2023, in Counts 4 and 5, the
government's materials provide that there is extraneous evidence tying the
defendant to the events, including but not limited to the telephone number
tied to the defendant through various sources, as well 	as police audio
recordings between the defendant and the confidential 	informant. 1 The
same is true of the transaction which occurred on January 4, 2024, in Count
6. With respect to the transaction on February 20, 2024, in Count 7, there
is 	video 	surveillance, 	as 	well 	as 	a 	telephone 	which 	was 	retrieved
1 The government provides that the audio records have been and will
continue to be made available to the defendant's attorney for review.
4
Case 1:24-cr-00230-MEM Document 138 Filed 03/13/26 Page 4 of 5

subsequent to the defendant's arrest containing the same phone number
used in the transaction.
The 	government 	argues that the 	defense 	has 	not 	identified 	any
legitimate 	purpose 	for 	disclosing 	the 	confidential 	informant's 	identity.
However, given the evidence, as well as the defendant's lengthy criminal
history, 	the 	government 	argues that 	any 	claim 	that the 	information 	is
needed in relation to an identity or entrapment defense is unavailing. The
court 	agrees. 	Accordingly, 	the 	court finds 	that the 	government 	is 	not
required 	to 	disclose the informant's identity. 	An 	appropriate order shall
issue.
Dated: J/13/u,
24-230-01
tates District Judge
5
Case 1:24-cr-00230-MEM Document 138 Filed 03/13/26 Page 5 of 5