I'm trying to find cases supporting a motion to have an undercover officer testify with in a light disguise because she is engaged in ongoing investigations and fears retailation. I've checked every circuit and the USSC. I can't find anything except a 2nd Circuit case (Morales v. Artuz, 281 F.3d 55) that supports my argument. I found a TX case that I said it violates the right to confront witnesses, but I believe I can distinguish my case. The TX case is Romero v. Texas, 173 S.W.3d 502. Do you know of any other case? Have you ever made a motion like this one?

Bethany

Here's a case:

Defendant's objection that he was denied his right to confront the witness because of the beard, mustache and wig are meritless, as these items did not interfere with his ability to cross-examine Rogers in any respect. Not only was the defendant fully able to question the witness, but the hair did not obscure his face in such a fashion that it interfered with the ability to see Rogers's facial expressions or assess his demeanor. Moreover, had Rogers grown a full beard and mustache in the three years that elapsed since the Hinton hearing, defendant would not be able to complain that the added facial hair prevented him from confronting the witness. The result should not be any different here merely because the hair was not Rogers's own. I find that the facial hair did not interfere with defendant's Sixth Amendment rights

People v. Smith, 819 N.Y.S.2d 850 (March 14, 2006) (Table; trial court opinion).

That seems more persuasive than Romero's statement that "the trier of fact was deprived of the ability to observe his eyes and his facial expressions." By that logic the bearded, the blind and people who can't make facial expressions cannot be allowed to testify.

What good would the disguise do anyways? You have to release the true name of the person to the defense; thus, anyone with the time or inclination could track this person down and find out what they look like. A pulic servant's identity and employment file is a public record.

maybe the Padilla case will provide some precedent

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-6501246,00.html