California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from City of Alhambra v. Superior Court, 205 Cal.App.3d 1118, 252 Cal.Rptr. 789 (Cal. App. 1988):
15 We are not unmindful of the fact that the governmental entity's role is likely to be severely limited by its lack of knowledge as to the factual and legal basis for defendant's motion if some or all of the defendant's confidentiality claim is sustained. However, in such a circumstance its position is no different from that of a defendant who, for example, seeks review of an order denying his motion for disclosure of the identity of a confidential informer following an in camera hearing from which the defendant and his counsel are excluded. (Evid. Code, 1042, subd. (d).) In both cases, the parties must do the best they can with the information they have, and the appellate court will fill the gap by objectively reviewing the whole record. (People v. Collins (1986) 42 Cal.3d 378, 395, fn. 22, 228 Cal.Rptr. 899, 722 P.2d 173.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.