prosecution asserted that the witnesses had received threats after the indictment was entered against the defendants. The danger claimed by the witnesses related to the defendants, and the witnesses feared reprisal from the defendants or their associates. The district court subsequently delayed its order for the disclosure of the witnesses’ identities and grand jury testimonies until December 13, 1996, stating that its amended order was based in part on the witnesses’ safety concerns. Thus, it appears that the district court concluded that there was a factual basis for the witnesses’ safety concerns by ruling, in part, that the witnesses’ safety would be endangered if their identities were known before they were moved to witness protection. In weighing the defendants’ right of confro (<HOLDING>). Because we hold that the witnesses’ right to
holding a trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to require disclosure of an informants name holding appellate court need not address issues unnecessary to its decision holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to require disclosure of witness address because personal safety exception applied noting that defendant knew victims prior address thereby limiting value of victims most current address holding that rule 415f worked to cure deficiencies in service of process in action to enforce a judgment lien on real estate where service was provided at debtors last residential address known to lienholder because address was used during underlying lawsuit lienholders attorney checked county record to verify address information debtor did receive summons and residential address was on the former situs of debtors business holding that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by crediting the government witnesss hesitation to divulge his address and refusing to require the submission of the agents home address