Submitted: January 3, 2019
Defendants' Motions for Reargument. Granted.
A. Motoyoshi, Esquire
Zachary A. George, Esquire
A. Motoyoshi, Esquire of the Department of Justice, Dover,
Delaware; attorney for the State of Delaware.
Zachary A. George, Esquire of Hudson Jones Jaywork &
Fisher, LLC, Dover, Delaware; attorney for Defendants.
WILLIAM L. WITHAM, JR. RESIDENT JUDGE
the Court are Defendants, Alvin Williams and Jimmy Artis
("Williams/Artis"), and their Motions for
Reargument. Both motions follow this Court's
November 21, 2018 order that denied Williams/Artis'
Motion to Disclose Confidential Informants. The State filed
its response in opposition to the instant motion on December
10, 2018. The Court heard oral arguments on December 21, 2018
and reserved judgment.
carefully considering the motions, responses, and oral
arguments, the Court finds Williams/Artis have demonstrated
sufficient grounds for reargument. For the forthcoming
reasons, the motions for reargument are hereby
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Williams is charged with one count of drug dealing pursuant
to 16 Del. C. § 4754(1). He filed his motion to disclose
confidential informants on October 9, 2018 and asserted that
individuals he allegedly sold drugs to were identified in an
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
("ATF") report by Detective Bumgarner, as
confidential informants 1850 and 8892.
Artis is charged with four counts of drug dealing pursuant to
16 Del. C. § 4754(1). He filed his motion to disclose
confidential informants on October 18, 2018and also asserted
that individuals he allegedly sold drugs to were confidential
Court denied both motions in an order on November 21, 2018.
Williams/Artis subsequently filed timely motions for
reargument on November 26, 2018. The State filed its
responses in opposition on December 10, 2018 and oral
arguments were heard on December 21, 2018. The Court
motion for reargument in a criminal case is governed by
Superior Court Civil Rule ("Rule")
59(e). Upon a Rule 59(e) motion, the Court has
the discretion to determine the merits of the
motion for reargument will be granted only if "the Court
has overlooked a controlling precedent or legal principles,
or the Court has misapprehended the law or facts such as
would have changed the outcome of the underlying
decision." A motion for reargument is not an
opportunity for a party to rehash arguments already decided
by the Court or to present new arguments not previously
party seeking reargument has the burden to demonstrate newly
discovered evidence, a change in the law, or manifest
Court will first address Williams' motion for
reargument. Williams argues that the Court
"misapprehended the law and facts in a manner that would
change the outcome of the case." As before, he
asserts that the State's witnesses were in fact not
witnesses, but "confidential informants [as] parties to
the alleged illegal transaction...." and fall
under Flowers Category 4, requiring disclosure.
however, for the first time, Williams argues that there is an
issue of material fact regarding whether the witnesses are
"witnesses" or "confidential informants."
He asserts the State's classification of these
individuals as witnesses requires the Court to hold a
Flowers evidentiary hearing to determine whether the
witnesses are in fact "witnesses," or
State, in opposition, counters that a Flowers
hearing is inappropriate because it has not, nor does it
intend to, invoke its privilege pursuant to Delaware Uniform
Rule of Evidence (D.R.E.) 509 regarding confidential
informants because there are no confidential informants in
this case. At oral argument, the State argued that
the individuals' identities would be disclosed before
trial, where they would be called to testify as witnesses for
first glance, Williams' motion for reargument appears to
be a new argument and prohibited pursuant to Rule 59(e). He
further fails to present new evidence that might support his
Delaware law is clear. Superior Court Criminal Rule
("Rule") 16 provides that the State is not required
to disclose the identity of its witnesses prior to
trial or to provide a "complete and
detailed accounting...of all police investigatory work on a
case." The State also correctly states that a
Flowers hearing is generally appropriate only when
it has invoked privilege pursuant to D.R.E.
509. Thus, it appears the Court should deny
However, this case deeply troubles the Court. Specifically,
the Court is disturbed by Williams' allegation that the
individuals in question are, in reality, confidential
informants. This ...