While the above situation was the one presented to the Court at trial, the motions currently before the Court are posttrial motions for judgment of acquittal or for a new trial. As such the Court notes that, while to a large degree, the determination of Mr. Nolan's guilt or innocence rested on an evaluation of his credibility, there was no showing that only Mr. Flora could have provided any corroboration. The testimony of Ms. Caplan and Mr. Porter was essentially corroborative. Moreover, having obtained a government agreement not to prosecute either of Mr. Nolan's parents for aiding and abetting a fugitive, the defendant found no use for their testimony. All in all, the Court does not believe that in handling the request for immunity for James Flora, any error was committed which denied the defendant access to essential and exculpatory testimony.
As previously noted, it is unnecessary to address many of the particular allegations of error raised by the defendant. However, the Court agrees that the allegation denominated 9(L) in the supplemental motion is factually accurate. This Court did prohibit examination of the good faith of government agents at the suppression hearing. After subsequent research the Court determined that the good faith of the officers was a legitimate basis for denying the motion to suppress. It appears that the defendant may not have had a complete opportunity to develop any lack of good faith in the officers and finds that some relief is appropriate. However the Court is not persuaded at this time that a new trial or judgment of acquittal would be appropriate, instead the Court will permit the defendant to reopen the suppression hearing and explore the good faith of the officers.
Finally this Court is compelled to note that while it has considered all the contentions of error advanced, and has commented on all those deserving further development, even if there were some error in the trial of this case, the overwhelming proof of defendant's guilt would, in an analysis of the entire case, render such an error harmless.
An appropriate order will issue.
AND NOW, April 8, 1982, upon consideration of the motion for judgment of acquittal and for a new trial, and in accordance with the foregoing opinion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that in light of allegations of error 9(L) in the supplemental motion, the defendant shall be permitted to reopen the suppression hearing so that he may have a full opportunity to develop facts which may establish a lack of good faith by the officers and to that extent only.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other allegations of error are found without merit and the motions for judgment of acquittal and for a new trial are denied.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the date for the reopening of the suppression hearing and sentence of the defendant shall be set by further order of court.