Exposing a confidential informant can be a serious federal crime, and depending on the circumstances, it can trigger charges for obstruction of justice, witness tampering, or retaliation under multiple sections of the US criminal code. The specific charge depends on who does the exposing, why they do it, and what happens as a result.
This matters more than most people realize. The US criminal justice system relies heavily on confidential informants, and that reliance creates real legal exposure for anyone who compromises a CI’s identity, whether intentionally or recklessly. Federal prosecutors take these cases seriously.
This article covers every major aspect of the legal question: which federal statutes apply, what the penalties are, how the law differs when a private citizen, a cop, or a journalist does the exposing, what rights defendants have to learn a CI’s identity, and how courts balance all of these competing interests in 2026.
Is It Illegal to Expose a Confidential Informant
Exposing a confidential informant is illegal under multiple federal statutes when done with intent to obstruct justice, intimidate a witness, or retaliate against someone who provided information to law enforcement. There is no single federal law that says “you cannot reveal a CI’s name,” but several overlapping statutes cover the conduct from different angles.
The legality also depends heavily on context. A defense attorney filing a discovery motion asking a court to compel the government to reveal a CI’s identity is engaging in a protected legal process. A criminal defendant who learns a CI’s name and then tells their associates in order to intimidate or harm that person is committing multiple federal crimes.
Private citizens who expose a CI without any obstructive or retaliatory intent occupy a grayer area, but the further the exposure causes foreseeable harm, the more likely criminal exposure becomes. Intent, foreseeability, and outcome are the three factors that determine which side of the legal line any specific act of exposure falls on.
Quick Facts:
- No single federal statute is titled “prohibiting CI exposure”
- Multiple statutes cover CI exposure as obstruction, tampering, or retaliation
- 18 U.S. Code Sections 1503, 1512, and 1513 are the primary federal laws
- Intent and outcome are the key legal factors
- Government officials who expose CIs can face civil rights liability under 42 U.S. Code Section 1983
- Defendants have a qualified right to CI identity disclosure under Roviaro v. United States (1957)
What Charges Can You Face for Exposing a Confidential Informant
The specific charges for exposing a confidential informant depend on the actor’s role and intent, but the most commonly applied federal statutes are obstruction of justice (18 U.S. Code Section 1503), witness tampering (18 U.S. Code Section 1512), and retaliating against a federal informant (18 U.S. Code Section 1513).
Each statute covers a different type of conduct. Section 1503 applies when someone corruptly influences, obstructs, or impedes the due administration of justice. Section 1512 applies when someone tampers with a witness, victim, or informant by influencing their testimony, preventing their cooperation, or causing harm to discourage cooperation. Section 1513 specifically targets retaliation against a person who provided information to federal law enforcement.
Beyond these three primary statutes, additional charges can apply in specific circumstances. Conspiracy charges under 18 U.S. Code Section 371 can be added when two or more people coordinate the exposure. State criminal charges, including criminal harassment, stalking, or interference with judicial proceedings, can be layered on top of federal charges depending on the jurisdiction.
| Charge | Statute | What It Covers | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Obstruction of justice | 18 U.S. Code Section 1503 | Corruptly obstructing judicial proceedings | Up to 10 years federal prison |
| Witness tampering | 18 U.S. Code Section 1512 | Tampering with informants or witnesses | Up to 30 years if murder results; up to 20 years otherwise |
| Retaliation against informant | 18 U.S. Code Section 1513 | Retaliating for cooperation with law enforcement | Up to 30 years if murder results; up to 10 years otherwise |
| Conspiracy | 18 U.S. Code Section 371 | Conspiring to commit above offenses | Up to 5 years |
| Civil rights violation | 42 U.S. Code Section 1983 | Government official exposing CI under color of law | Civil damages |
Federal Law on Confidential Informant Exposure
Federal law addresses confidential informant protection through a network of criminal statutes rather than a single comprehensive CI protection act. The primary framework consists of the obstruction and witness protection statutes in Chapter 73 of Title 18 of the US Code, supplemented by the informant privilege recognized in federal common law and case precedent.
The Department of Justice maintains internal guidelines for law enforcement agencies managing confidential informants. These guidelines, issued through the FBI and DEA among other agencies, govern how CIs are registered, handled, and protected. Violations of these internal guidelines by agents can result in administrative discipline, civil liability, and in egregious cases, criminal charges.
Federal prosecutors have consistently treated the exposure of informants as a serious matter, particularly in cases involving drug trafficking organizations, organized crime, and national security investigations. In these contexts, revealing a CI’s identity is not treated as a paperwork violation; it is treated as an attack on the integrity of ongoing law enforcement operations.
Federal Framework for CI Protection:
- 18 U.S. Code Chapter 73: Obstruction of justice and witness protection statutes
- DOJ internal guidelines: FBI Confidential Human Source Policy; DEA CI management rules
- Informant privilege: Federal common law doctrine recognized in Roviaro v. United States (1957)
- Cooperation agreements: Contractual protections between CI and government
- Grand jury secrecy rules: Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e) protects grand jury testimony including CI cooperation
- Witness Security Program (WITSEC): Federal protection for CIs facing serious threats
Obstruction of Justice and Confidential Informant Cases
Obstruction of justice under 18 U.S. Code Section 1503 applies to CI exposure cases when the exposure is intended to interfere with an ongoing judicial proceeding. The statute requires proof that the person knew a judicial proceeding was pending and corruptly tried to obstruct it.
The word “corruptly” is the key element in Section 1503 cases. Courts have interpreted it to mean acting with an improper purpose, specifically to impede justice. Simply knowing who a CI is and mentioning it to someone does not automatically satisfy this standard. But telling associates about a CI’s identity specifically to scare the CI into not testifying, or to tip off co-defendants who are being investigated, meets the corrupt purpose requirement.
The “omnibus clause” of Section 1503, which covers anyone who “corruptly influences, obstructs, or impedes the due administration of justice,” is the provision most frequently applied to CI exposure cases. This clause is broad enough to cover a wide range of conduct beyond direct witness tampering, including indirect interference that discourages informant cooperation.
Key Elements Prosecutors Must Prove for Obstruction:
- A federal judicial proceeding was pending or reasonably foreseeable
- The defendant knew about the proceeding
- The defendant acted corruptly, meaning with improper obstructive purpose
- The defendant’s conduct had the natural and probable effect of interfering with justice
- The obstruction was connected to a federal matter, not purely a state proceeding
Key Takeaway: Obstruction of justice charges for CI exposure require proof of corrupt intent tied to a specific judicial proceeding; casual or inadvertent disclosure without obstructive purpose does not meet the statutory threshold, but prosecutors have wide latitude in proving intent from circumstantial evidence.
Witness Tampering and Informant Identity Laws
Witness tampering under 18 U.S. Code Section 1512 is one of the most powerful tools federal prosecutors use against people who expose confidential informants. Unlike the obstruction statute, Section 1512 does not require that a judicial proceeding be currently pending; it applies even to conduct intended to prevent future cooperation.
Section 1512 makes it a crime to knowingly use intimidation, threats, or corrupt persuasion toward another person with intent to influence, delay, or prevent that person’s testimony in an official proceeding. Exposing a CI’s identity to criminal associates with the intent to discourage the CI from cooperating fits squarely within this definition.
The statute also covers attempts. If someone tries to intimidate an informant by revealing their identity but the intimidation fails, they can still be convicted under Section 1512 because the statute explicitly covers attempts to tamper. The maximum penalty is up to 20 years in federal prison for standard violations, and up to 30 years if the tampering involves an attempt to kill or causes death.
Section 1512 Key Provisions:
- Covers threats, intimidation, and corrupt persuasion toward witnesses and informants
- No pending judicial proceeding required; applies to anticipated proceedings
- Covers attempts, not just completed acts of tampering
- Applies to all official proceedings, including federal grand jury investigations
- Maximum penalty: 20 years; up to 30 years if death results
- Separate provision covers destruction of evidence related to a proceeding
Retaliation Against a Confidential Informant Under 18 USC 1513
Retaliation against a federal informant is a standalone federal crime under 18 U.S. Code Section 1513, and it is specifically designed to protect people who have already cooperated with federal law enforcement from being punished for that cooperation. This statute covers conduct that occurs after the informant has already provided information.
Section 1513 makes it a federal crime to knowingly engage in conduct that causes bodily injury or property damage to another person in retaliation for providing truthful information to a federal law enforcement officer or judge about the commission of a federal offense. The statute also covers threats of retaliation, even when no physical harm occurs.
Exposing a CI’s identity to known criminals, when that exposure is designed to cause harm to the CI as punishment for cooperating, is exactly the type of conduct Section 1513 targets. The penalty for a standard retaliation offense is up to 10 years in federal prison. If the retaliation results in death or involves an attempt to kill, the sentence can extend to 30 years or life imprisonment.
| Conduct | Section 1513 Coverage | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Exposing CI identity to cause harm | Yes, if done in retaliation for cooperation | Up to 10 years |
| Threatening a CI for cooperating | Yes, threats of retaliation covered | Up to 10 years |
| Physical assault on CI for cooperating | Yes | Up to 20 years |
| Killing or attempted killing of CI | Yes | Up to 30 years to life |
| Damage to CI’s property in retaliation | Yes | Up to 10 years |
Confidential Informant Legal Protections and Identity Laws
Confidential informants receive legal protection through a combination of federal statutes, agency policies, cooperation agreements, and the federal Witness Security Program. These protections exist because the entire system of using CIs depends on informants believing their cooperation will not get them killed.
Cooperation agreements between a CI and the government are formal contracts that outline what the CI will do, what protections they will receive, and what benefits they will get in exchange for cooperation. These agreements often include provisions requiring the government to take reasonable steps to protect the CI’s identity. Breach of these provisions by the government can create civil liability.
The Federal Witness Security Program, commonly known as WITSEC, is the most extreme form of CI protection available. Run by the US Marshals Service, WITSEC provides new identities, relocation, and ongoing financial and security support to CIs and witnesses whose cooperation has exposed them to serious danger. Placement in WITSEC is reserved for the highest-risk cases.
CI Protection Framework:
- Cooperation agreements: Formal government contracts with confidentiality provisions
- FBI Confidential Human Source Policy: Internal guidelines governing CI management and protection
- DEA CI management rules: Similar internal framework for DEA informants
- Federal Witness Security Program (WITSEC): Relocation and new identity for highest-risk CIs
- Grand jury secrecy under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e): Protects CI testimony from disclosure
- Informant privilege: Courts can withhold CI identity from defendants in many circumstances
Informant Privilege Doctrine Explained
The informant privilege is a legal doctrine that gives the government the right to withhold a confidential informant’s identity from criminal defendants and the public in appropriate circumstances. It is not an absolute privilege; courts balance it against defendants’ constitutional rights in each case.
The doctrine was established and defined by the US Supreme Court in Roviaro v. United States, decided in 1957. The Court recognized that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting the identity of people who assist law enforcement. At the same time, the Court held that this privilege must yield when disclosure is essential to the defendant’s ability to mount a fair defense.
In practice, courts apply a balancing test. Judges consider the crime charged, the possible defenses available, the potential significance of the informant’s testimony, and the government’s interest in maintaining confidentiality. If the court finds that the CI’s identity is material to the defense, it can order disclosure or dismiss the case if the government refuses to disclose.
Informant Privilege Balancing Test Factors:
- Nature of the crime charged
- Whether the CI participated in the alleged offense
- Whether the CI is a key witness rather than merely a tipster
- The potential significance of the CI’s testimony to the defense
- The government’s articulated reasons for maintaining confidentiality
- Whether alternative ways exist to protect the CI while permitting defense access
Key Takeaway: The informant privilege is powerful but not absolute; courts regularly force the government to choose between revealing a CI’s identity or dismissing a case when the CI’s role is central to the prosecution.
Can a Defendant Find Out Who the Confidential Informant Is
A defendant in a criminal case can potentially find out who the confidential informant is, but it requires filing a specific motion with the court and meeting a legal standard established by Roviaro v. United States. The process is not automatic, and many requests are denied.
To obtain CI identity disclosure, a defendant must show that the informant’s identity is relevant and helpful to the defense, or essential to a fair determination of the case. Merely suspecting that a CI exists is not enough. The defendant typically needs to show that the CI was a participant in or witness to the alleged crime, not just an anonymous tipster who provided information that led police to the defendant.
Courts handle these requests through in camera review, meaning the judge privately examines evidence about the CI’s role without either party present, before deciding whether disclosure is required. This process protects the CI’s identity during the review phase while ensuring the judge has complete information to make the ruling.
How to Request CI Identity Disclosure:
- File a motion to disclose the identity of the confidential informant
- Demonstrate materiality: the CI’s identity must be relevant to the defense
- Show the CI participated in the crime, not just provided a tip
- Request an in camera hearing for the judge to review CI information privately
- If the court orders disclosure and the government refuses, dismissal may result
- Brady material rules require disclosure if the CI’s information helps the defense
Roviaro v. United States and Informant Identity Rights
Roviaro v. United States, decided by the US Supreme Court in 1957, is the foundational case for understanding a defendant’s right to know a confidential informant’s identity. The decision established the balancing framework that courts still use in 2026 to resolve these disputes.
In Roviaro, the defendant was convicted of selling heroin. The government’s key witness was a confidential informant who participated directly in the drug transaction. The government refused to identify the informant. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that in this case, the informant was the only witness to the transaction, and denying his identity to the defendant violated due process.
The Court’s ruling distinguished between informants who are merely tipsters (who generally remain anonymous) and informants who are active participants in the alleged crime (who are more likely to require disclosure). This distinction remains the cornerstone of informant identity law. A CI who just told police where to find a suspect has a much stronger claim to anonymity than one who directly participated in the criminal transaction.
Roviaro Distinction: Tipster vs. Participant:
| Informant Role | Disclosure Likelihood | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Anonymous tipster only | Low; privilege usually upheld | No direct participation; identity not material |
| Surveillance observer | Low to moderate | Presence but limited participation |
| Active participant in crime | High; disclosure often required | Direct evidence of the transaction |
| Sole witness to alleged crime | Very high; likely required | Fair trial impossible without disclosure |
| Informant who set up the crime | High | Entrapment defense may require disclosure |
Can Police Legally Expose a Confidential Informant
Police officers can legally expose a confidential informant in limited circumstances, specifically when authorized by a court order or when required by law, such as Brady disclosure obligations in criminal cases. Unauthorized exposure by a police officer is a different matter entirely and can result in serious legal consequences.
Law enforcement agencies have a duty of care to confidential informants they manage. This duty arises from the cooperation agreement, agency policy, and in some circuits, constitutional due process principles. When an officer negligently or deliberately exposes a CI without authorization, the officer and potentially the agency face civil liability under 42 U.S. Code Section 1983 if the exposure results in a constitutional deprivation.
The Ninth and Seventh Circuits have both recognized that a CI can bring a Section 1983 claim against officers who recklessly or deliberately expose their identity, creating conditions that lead to physical harm. The theory is that the government created the danger by recruiting the CI and then failed to protect them. Not all circuits have adopted this view uniformly, but the trend in case law has moved toward greater government accountability for CI safety.
When Police Exposure Is Authorized:
- Court-ordered disclosure following a successful Roviaro motion
- Brady material obligation requires disclosure of information helpful to the defense
- When the CI voluntarily waives confidentiality
- During trial testimony if the court orders the CI to testify openly
- Internal agency disclosure on a need-to-know basis for operational purposes
What Happens If a Cop Exposes a Confidential Informant
If a law enforcement officer unlawfully exposes a confidential informant, the consequences can include civil rights lawsuits, internal affairs investigations, criminal charges in serious cases, and the collapse of the investigation the CI was supporting. The outcomes range from administrative discipline to federal prosecution depending on the severity and intent of the exposure.
Civil liability under 42 U.S. Code Section 1983 is the most commonly pursued remedy. A CI who is harmed because an officer unlawfully revealed their identity can sue the officer and the agency for damages. Section 1983 requires showing that the officer acted under color of state law and that the action deprived the CI of a federally protected right. The Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause has been used as the constitutional basis in these cases.
Qualified immunity protects officers from civil liability unless the constitutional right violated was clearly established at the time of the conduct. Courts have increasingly found that a CI’s right to protection from state-created danger is clearly established, meaning qualified immunity defenses are less likely to succeed in CI exposure cases than in some other civil rights contexts.
Consequences for Officers Who Expose CIs:
- Internal affairs investigation and potential termination
- Loss of law enforcement certification in some states
- Civil lawsuit under 42 U.S. Code Section 1983
- Criminal charges if exposure constituted obstruction or retaliation
- Damage awards including compensatory and punitive damages
- Department liability if systemic failure to protect CIs is demonstrated
Key Takeaway: Law enforcement officers who expose confidential informants face civil rights liability under Section 1983, potential criminal charges, and career-ending discipline; the “state-created danger” doctrine increasingly holds the government accountable when it recruits a CI and then fails to protect them.
Journalist Exposing a Confidential Informant and Shield Laws
Journalists who expose confidential informants face a complex intersection of First Amendment press freedoms, state shield laws, and federal interest in protecting law enforcement sources. The legal outcome depends heavily on whether the journalist is reporting on a matter of public concern and what harm results from the disclosure.
State shield laws, which exist in approximately 40 states and the District of Columbia, protect journalists from being compelled to reveal their sources in legal proceedings. These laws do not, however, provide immunity from criminal prosecution if revealing a CI’s identity constitutes obstruction of justice, witness tampering, or aiding a criminal organization.
At the federal level, there is no comprehensive federal shield law, though the Department of Justice has internal policies that limit subpoenas to journalists. A journalist who deliberately reveals a CI’s identity to enable criminal activity against that CI would face the same federal statutes as any other person, regardless of their press credentials.
Shield Laws and CI Exposure:
| State Shield Law Status | Does It Protect CI Disclosure? | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Strong shield (NY, CA, NJ) | Protects against compelled disclosure | Does not protect criminal conduct |
| Moderate shield (TX, FL) | Limited protection | Privilege can be overcome in some proceedings |
| No shield law (few states) | No statutory protection | Common law privilege may apply |
| Federal proceedings | No federal shield law | DOJ policy provides limited protection |
Penalty for Outing a Confidential Informant
The penalty for outing a confidential informant varies based on which statute applies and what harm results, but the federal penalties are serious and can result in decades in federal prison in the most severe cases. No single fine amount applies uniformly; the sentencing framework depends on the specific charge and circumstances.
Under 18 U.S. Code Section 1512, the maximum sentence for witness tampering that does not result in death is 20 years. If death results, the maximum is 30 years. Under Section 1513, retaliating against an informant carries up to 10 years, escalating to 30 years if the retaliation involves an attempt to kill. Under Section 1503, obstruction of justice carries up to 10 years, with higher sentences if the underlying case involved certain serious crimes.
Federal sentencing guidelines further shape the actual sentence within these statutory maximums. Factors that increase the guideline range include prior criminal history, leadership role in the offense, use of a weapon, and whether the CI was seriously harmed. Cases where a CI was killed after being exposed by a defendant have resulted in consecutive sentences that effectively amount to life imprisonment.
Federal Penalty Summary for CI Exposure:
| Statute | Offense | Maximum Sentence |
|---|---|---|
| 18 U.S. Code Section 1503 | Obstruction of justice | Up to 10 years |
| 18 U.S. Code Section 1512 | Witness tampering | Up to 20 years (30 if death results) |
| 18 U.S. Code Section 1513 | Retaliation against informant | Up to 10 years (30 if attempt to kill) |
| 18 U.S. Code Section 371 | Conspiracy to commit above | Up to 5 years |
| State criminal charges | Varies by state | Varies by state |
State Laws on Exposing a Confidential Informant
State laws on exposing confidential informants are less uniform than federal law, but most states have obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and intimidation statutes that cover the same conduct at the state level. In cases where a CI is working on a state investigation rather than a federal one, state statutes are the primary legal framework.
California Penal Code Section 136.1 covers witness dissuasion and intimidation, including conduct designed to prevent a witness or informant from cooperating with law enforcement. The offense is a felony when accompanied by force or threat of force. New York Penal Law Section 215.10 covers witness tampering, and New York Penal Law Section 215.50 covers criminal contempt, which can apply to CI exposure in specific circumstances.
Texas Penal Code Section 36.06 specifically prohibits obstructing or retaliating against a person who has reported a crime or cooperated with law enforcement. Florida Statutes Section 914.22 covers tampering with witnesses, victims, and informants. These state statutes parallel federal law and often result in state charges being filed alongside or instead of federal charges depending on which agency led the investigation.
State Obstruction and Informant Protection Statutes:
| State | Statute | Coverage | Classification |
|---|---|---|---|
| California | Penal Code Section 136.1 | Witness and informant dissuasion | Felony (with force) |
| New York | Penal Law Section 215.10 | Witness tampering | Felony |
| Texas | Penal Code Section 36.06 | Obstruction or retaliation | Third-degree felony |
| Florida | Statutes Section 914.22 | Tampering with informants | Third-degree felony |
| Illinois | 720 ILCS 5/32-4a | Harassment of witness or informant | Class 3 felony |
How Confidential Informant Identity Is Protected in Court
Confidential informant identity is protected in court through a combination of procedural rules, judicial oversight, and the informant privilege doctrine. Courts manage CI identity through in camera review, protective orders, and careful management of what information appears in the public record.
When a defendant files a motion seeking CI identity, the court typically orders the government to submit information about the CI for private judicial review, without disclosing it to the defense first. The judge evaluates whether the CI’s role was material enough to require disclosure. This process keeps the CI’s identity out of public court records unless disclosure is ultimately ordered.
Protective orders are another mechanism courts use to manage CI information. When a court orders CI identity disclosure to the defense, it often simultaneously issues a protective order prohibiting the defense from sharing that information beyond the immediate defense team. Violating a protective order is contempt of court, which carries its own criminal penalties separate from the underlying charges.
CI Identity Protection Mechanisms in Court:
- In camera review: Judge privately examines CI information before ruling
- Sealed filings: Documents containing CI information are filed under seal and kept from public record
- Protective orders: Courts restrict who can see CI identity once disclosed to defense
- Redaction: CI identifying details removed from public court documents
- Pseudonyms: CIs referred to by number or pseudonym in public proceedings
- Courtroom closure: Portions of hearings involving CI information can be closed to the public
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it illegal to expose a confidential informant?
Yes, exposing a confidential informant is illegal under multiple federal statutes when done with intent to obstruct justice, intimidate, or retaliate.
The primary laws are 18 U.S. Code Sections 1503, 1512, and 1513, which cover obstruction, witness tampering, and retaliation.
The legality depends on who does the exposing, why they do it, and what harm results.
Casual disclosure without obstructive intent is less likely to be prosecuted but is not automatically legal.
What charges can someone face for exposing a confidential informant?
The most common federal charges are obstruction of justice under Section 1503, witness tampering under Section 1512, and retaliation under Section 1513.
Maximum penalties range from 10 years to 30 years in federal prison depending on the specific charge and whether harm results.
State charges for witness intimidation and obstruction can be filed separately or simultaneously with federal charges.
Conspiracy charges can also be added when two or more people coordinate the exposure.
Can a defendant find out who the confidential informant is in their case?
A defendant can request CI identity disclosure by filing a motion and showing the CI’s identity is material to the defense under the standard established in Roviaro v. United States (1957).
Courts use a balancing test weighing the defendant’s need against the government’s interest in protecting the CI.
If the CI was an active participant in the alleged crime rather than just a tipster, courts are much more likely to order disclosure.
If the government refuses a court-ordered disclosure, the case may be dismissed.
Can a police officer be sued for exposing a confidential informant?
Yes, a law enforcement officer who unlawfully exposes a CI can be sued under 42 U.S. Code Section 1983 for violating the CI’s constitutional rights.
Courts have recognized the “state-created danger” doctrine, which holds the government liable when it recruits a CI and then fails to protect them.
Successful lawsuits can result in compensatory and punitive damages against both the officer and the agency.
Qualified immunity can protect officers in some cases, but courts have increasingly found that a CI’s right to protection is a clearly established constitutional right.
Do shield laws protect journalists who expose confidential informants?
State shield laws protect journalists from being forced to reveal their sources in court but do not protect journalists from criminal prosecution for CI exposure.
If a journalist reveals a CI’s identity and that act constitutes obstruction of justice or enables harm to the CI, federal criminal statutes apply regardless of press credentials.
There is no federal shield law; the DOJ has internal policies limiting subpoenas to journalists but these are not legally binding protections.
Journalists in states with strong shield laws (California, New York, New Jersey) have the most procedural protection against compelled source disclosure in civil and criminal proceedings.
The legal framework protecting confidential informants is more serious and more detailed than most people expect. Federal prosecutors have powerful tools available, and they use them in cases involving obstruction, tampering, and retaliation.
Bookmark this page as a reference for understanding exactly where the legal lines fall in these situations. The specifics matter, and knowing which statute applies to which conduct could make a significant difference in how any particular situation plays out.
