cannot assess the reliability of a remote anonymous informant in this manner. Moreover, the risk of “an in-person informant ... losing anonymity” is higher than that of a remote informant, furnishing more of an incentive for an in-person informant to be honest. Id. at 953. The information Ms. Thompson-Wright gave to Officer Chih was, if not technically an anonymous tip, functionally equivalent to one. The factors that render anonymous tips presumptively unreliable are plainly present here. Notwithstanding that Ms. Thompson-Wright was probably motivated by a desire to help bring her daughter’s assailant to justice, the motive of the source or sources of the information and photograph was completely unknown to Officer Chih. See United States v. Monteiro, 447 F.3d 39, 46 (1st Cir. 2006) (<HOLDING>). For all Officer Chih knew, the source or
holding that the trial courts admonition of a witness even though detailed and strongly stated did not coerce the witness because the court did not threaten or badger the witness and the court provided the witness with her own counsel to ensure that the decision was voluntary holding that promises made by the prosecution to a witness in exchange for that witness testimony relate directly to the credibility of the witness holding that a tip from an unnamed relative of a nonanonymous witness relayed by the witness was unreliable because inter alia even if the witness was honest in his interactions with the police his unnamed relative may have had her own motive for fabricating incriminating evidence recognizing that even evidence of a defendants and a witnesss prior bad acts was admissible to show inter alia the defendants familiarity with the witness holding that the defendants due process rights were violated when the trial judge singled out the only defense witness and indicated to that witness that he expected the witness to he and would personally ensure that the witness was prosecuted for perjury and thereby effectively drove that witness off the stand