Charges Dropped and Identity of

Accuser Shrouded by City, is Sought

Kenneth Creighton
2007, he was indicted on charges of possession of a
weapon and criminal facilitation and was jailed pending
trial
For five years Kenneth Creighton was held in jail, suspected
of involvement in the killing of a bystander outside a
bodega in the Bronx
He maintained his innocence through the years
In 2012 charges were dropped and he was released from
prison
He filed a lawsuit against NYC for false arrest and malicious
prosecution and has sought the name of his accuser
His accuser, a man who told police that he saw Creighton
hand a gun to this brother, who was charged with the
shooting

6th Amendment
The 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution sets out many rights
for defendants during a criminal prosecution, including the right
of the accused to confront their accusers. The relevant text of the
Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment reads as follows: In
all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be
confronted with the witnesses against him.
The 14th Amendment has made the 6th Amendment's right to
confrontation applicable to state court as well as federal court.
The confrontation clause guarantees criminal defendants the
opportunity to face the prosecution's witnesses in the case
against them and dispute the witnesses' testimony. This
guarantee applies to both statements made in court and
statements made outside of court that are offered as evidence
during trial

 The City says the informant has known Creighton for a very long time
and also knows the Creighton family. The informant maintains a
relationship with Creighton and his family. The informant believes
Creighton has no idea that he helped the police and testified before a
grand jury
The informant fears that he would be in physical danger of retaliation if
Creighton knew his identity
Initially when the city refused to divulge the informants name, Creightons
lawyers objected. A judge then ordered the lawyers be given the name on
a attorneys eyes only basis, meaning they could not tell their client
Creightons lawyers have said in court papers that not being able to reveal
the informants name to their client has hamstrung them in their case.
They cant discuss the informant with their client or what motives he
might have had for incriminating him, nor can they question other people
about the informant, because the would reveal his identity

 After further augments, a judge ruled that the

name should be given to Creighton
The city appealed the order to Federal District
Court arguing that;
The public interest in keeping the informants identity
secret is substantial
Because the informant still has dealings with
Creighton and this family, who are all unaware of this
role in the case, the informant is the equivalent of a
legal spy
Revealing the identity would in effect punish the
informant of agreeing to help the police in a matter
where the suspect was not ultimately

The order has been stayed pending his decision

How do you think the Judge will

rule in this case??
Do you think he should know who
accused him of a crime he didnt
commit and had to waste 5 years of
his life?