The Phantom Witness: Can You Go to Prison Without Confronting Your Accuser?

By: John Guidry

So, this is America, right? You have the “right” to confront your accusers—that’s part of the Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment. However, can a U.S. citizen really go to prison even though a key witness is withheld? Yes.

The Scenario: A standard “Sale and Delivery” drug sting.

• The Players: You, an Undercover Cop, and a Confidential Informant (CI).
• The Trial: The Cop testifies. The CI—who set up the deal, handled the money, and was standing right there—is nowhere to be found.
• The Result: The jury convicts you without ever hearing from the one person who could say, “He didn’t know what was in the bag.”

Welcome to the world of the Confidential Informant Privilege. Our government has carved out an exception (primarily in drug cases) where they do not have to reveal a key witness to the jury. We are left to just trust the police officer’s testimony.

• Hum, we trust police testimony blindly, don’t we?

Is the State hiding a witness who could prove your innocence?

You have to fight to unmask them. Call John today at (407) 423-1117.

The Rule: State v. Miller

So, the rule in Florida is best described by the court in State v. Miller, 729 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999):

“Disclosure of a confidential informant is required if an informant’s identity or content of his communication is relevant and helpful to the defense of an accused or is essential to a fair determination of a cause.”

The Catch-22: To get the name of the witness, you have to prove to the Judge that you need the witness.

• The Problem: How do you prove their testimony is helpful if you don’t know who they are or what they will say?
• The Requirement: You often have to “give up” your theory of defense (e.g., Entrapment or Misidentification) to the Judge in a sworn motion just to get a hearing.

The Three-Step Battle to Unmask the CI

Unmasking a CI is not automatic. We have to force the issue.

1. The Motion to Compel: We file a motion arguing that the CI is a “Material Witness.”
   • Weak Argument: “The CI introduced the cop to me.” (Mere Tipster).
   • Strong Argument: “The CI is the only person who heard the cop threaten me.” (Active Participant).
2. The Sworn Denial: You usually have to sign a sworn statement denying the crime or asserting a specific defense (like Entrapment) to show that the CI’s testimony matters.
3. The “In Camera” Hearing: If we win the first round, the Judge will interview the CI privately in chambers (without us present) to see if their story actually helps you. If the CI says, “Yeah, the defendant is innocent,” the Judge orders disclosure. If the CI says, “He’s guilty,” the Judge keeps the secret.

John’s 2026 Update: Ring Cameras & “Rachel’s Law”

Note: In 1999, the CI was just a voice on a wire. In 2026, they are often on video, which changes the game.

1. “Rachel’s Law” Compliance (F.S. 914.28) While this law (passed years ago) was meant to protect CIs, in 2026 we use it to attack their credibility.

• The Strategy: The law requires police to document the CI’s reliability and criminal history. We demand these “De-Anonymized” Files. Even if we don’t get the name, knowing the CI has been arrested for Perjury 3 times helps us destroy the Cop’s reliance on them.

2. The Ring Camera Defense In the old days, the CI was the only independent eyes on the scene.

• The 2026 Reality: Most drug deals happen on front porches covered by Ring/Nest cameras.
• The Argument: If the State claims the CI is “confidential” but we have 4K video of the CI standing on the porch, we argue the “Public Exposure” exception. You can’t hide the identity of a witness who has already been filmed by the neighborhood.

3. The “Lost” CI Often, by the time trial comes, the police have lost track of the junkie they used as a CI.

• The Motion to Dismiss: If the Judge orders disclosure (because the CI is essential), and the State says, “Oops, we can’t find him,” we move to Dismiss the Case. The State has a duty to maintain contact with material witnesses.

Don’t Trust the Ghost

If the State’s case relies on a witness they refuse to show you, something is wrong. We know how to apply the Miller test to force them into the light.

Call me at (407) 423-1117. Let’s find the witness.

About John Guidry II

John Guidry II is a seasoned criminal defense attorney and founder of the Law Firm of John P. Guidry II, P.A., located in downtown Orlando next to the Orange County Courthouse, where he has practiced for over 30 years. With more than three decades of experience defending clients throughout Central Florida since 1993, Guidry has successfully defended thousands of cases in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Brevard, Lake, and Volusia counties. He has built a reputation for his strategic approach to criminal defense, focusing on pretrial motions and case dismissals rather than jury trials.

Guidry earned both his Juris Doctorate and Master of Business Administration from St. Louis University in 1993. He is a member of the Florida Bar and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. His practice encompasses the full spectrum of Florida state criminal charges, with a particular emphasis on achieving favorable outcomes through thorough pretrial preparation and motion practice.

Beyond the courtroom, Guidry is a prolific legal educator who has authored over 400 articles on criminal defense topics. He shares his legal expertise through his popular YouTube channel, Instagram, and TikTok accounts, where he has built a substantial following of people eager to learn about the law. His educational content breaks down complex legal concepts into accessible information for the general public.

When not practicing law, Guidry enjoys tennis and pickleball, and loves to travel. Drawing from his background as a former recording studio owner and music video producer in the Orlando area, he brings a creative perspective to his legal practice and continues to apply his passion for video production to his educational content.