[oldgradstudent]

> I see no reason why the uniformed cop should be compelled to reveal his source.

If the defense asks at trial, what legitimate reason is there not to answer?

[vkou]

The legitimate reason is that it's not pertinent to the case. The accused is on trial, versus evidence publicly presented against him. If the prosecution feels that the evidence they would like to reveal in the trial is sufficient for a conviction, they have no reason to throw in 'Oh, and we have an informant who's been snitching on you and your fellow conspirators.'

It's not exculpatory evidence, there is no obligation for the prosecution to turn it over. There's no reason for the judge to allow a line of questioning into it unless the defendant can make an argument as to why its relevant.