United States v. Meril Martinez Rangel

Appellant, Meril Martinez Rangel, was convicted on both counts of an indictment, the first charging him with conspiracy with other persons to possess heroin with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1) and 846; the second charging him with possession of heroin with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1).

He appeals the conviction on three grounds: (1) that an informant who testified against appellant should have been required to divulge his true name, home address, and phone number on the witness stand; (2) that hearsay statements testified to by the informant were inadmissible; and (3) that the defense of entrapment should have been granted as a matter of law. Finding each of the appellant’s contentions without merit, we affirm.

Appellant first claims that the informant who testified against him should have been required to divulge his true name, home address, and phone number on the witness stand. Smith v. Illinois, 390 U.S. 129 , 88 S.Ct. 748 , 19 L.Ed.2d 956 (1968). Smith v. Illinois, however, “does not establish a rigid rule of disclosure, but rather discusses disclosure against a background of factors weighing conversely,…