In a case involving charges of three separate felony drug transactions, a judge granted the Sheppard firm’s Motion to Produce or Disclose a Confidential Informant who initially led police to the defendant. The informant was not present at any of the three transactions which led to the charges in this case but the informant did call the defendant, introduced him to the undercover officer and was present at the very first alleged drug transaction between the defendant and the undercover officer (the defendant was not charged with the very first transaction as the undercover officer was waiting for further transactions involving larger amounts of cannabis before arresting the defendant). The Motion to Produce the Informant pled, with supporting case-law, that allowing the defense an opportunity to interview the informant was crucial to the preparation of the defendant’s entrapment defense because the informant played a pivotal role in laying the groundwork for the charged offenses and therefore could be a material witness to the defendant’s entrapment defense. That is, the informant may well have incited or induced the defendant to sell drugs to the undercover officer when the defendant was not otherwise predisposed to do so. Typically, Motions to Produce or Disclose an Informant are granted when the informant was a “transactional informant” — i.e., he was present during the transaction which led to the charges. This case was unique in that the informant was not present during the transactions which led to the charges but laid the groundwork for the charged offenses. The judge granted the motion and ordered the State to disclose the identity of the informant to the defense or produce him for an interview with the defense. If the State elects not to disclose or produce the informant — it may be that the police officer made an agreement with the informant not to reveal his identity — the case may be dismissed.