United States v. Tracy Stephen Sessions, Aka: Tracy Sessions

41 F.3d 1514 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tracy Stephen SESSIONS, aka: Tracy Sessions, Defendant-Appellant. No. 93-50137. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted June 8, 1994. Decided Oct. 21, 1994. Before: D.W. NELSON, BEEZER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 * The district court abused its discretion by not holding an in camera hearing to determine whether the identity of the confidential informant should have been disclosed. In United States v. Spires, 3 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir.1993), we held that the district court must hold an in camera hearing when "the defendant makes 'a minimal threshold showing' that disclosure would be relevant to at least one defense." Id. at 1238 (quoting United States v. Sai Keung Wong, 886 F.2d 252, 256 (9th Cir.1989)). Defendant demonstrated in the district court that the informant's testimony would be relevant to one of his defenses at…