Court asked to dismiss drug case

A Chinese national accused of illegal possession and delivery of methamphetamine hydrochloride has asked the Superior Court to dismiss the charges against him due to the continued refusal of the government to disclose the identity of an informant.

Nyok Seng Tan, through his lawyer Assistant Public Defender Douglas Hartig, claimed that the Attorney General’s Office has failed to comply with the rules of discovery and repeatedly violated the court’s orders.

The case has been set for trial on Aug. 7, 2000 but until now, Mr. Tan said, the government has not provided essential information which is in violation of the rules of discovery as well as specific court orders.

Superior Court Associate Judge Timothy H. Bellas has earlier ordered the government to disclose the identity of its alleged informer, who is also a material witness in the case because the informer’s identity or the contents of the communication is relevant and helpful to the defense of the accused.

According to Mr. Tan, he and his lawyer have been unable to prepare for trial for more than a year after the alleged crime was committed due to the government’s failure to comply with the orders.

Court records show that Mr. Tan was arrested in October 1999 during a buy bust operation on the island-municipality of Tinian. A confidential informant had allegedly contacted the Tinian police saying that Mr. Tan had agreed to sell him $200 worth of crystal methamphetamine hydrochloride or “ice.”

Mr. Tan said he has sent a blank tape and a letter requesting for a copy of his alleged tape recorded conversation on Aug. 1, 2000. However, until now the government has failed to provide the defendant a copy of the tape recording or even respond to such request.

Mr. Tan said the government had also withheld the results of laboratory drug test for more than six months.

Based on the court records, the informant obtained funds from the Department of Public Safety on Sept. 9, 1999 and purchased a white crystal substance that later tested positive for “ice”.

On Oct. 7, 1999, the informant again contacted Mr. Tan in order to sell him an additional quantity of “ice”, obtained funds from the police and completed the purchase.

In his motion for disclosure of confidential informant, Mr. Tan pointed out that the informant was a percipient witness whose testimony might prove helpful in his defense. The defendant contends that he is entitled to disclosure as the informant contacted DPS, helped set up the deliveries and was an eyewitness to the transaction.

The government had objected to the disclosure of the informant’s identity saying it was unnecessary since the defendant obviously knows who the informant is and the defendant will not be surprised at trial.

It claimed there is a compelling interest in protecting the identity of cooperative citizens until trial as well as preserve the valuable resources of informants in investigations. (Lindablue F. Romero)