You could call it a tie, but you would be wrong.

We have one decision for and one against the use of confidential drug informants in criminal prosecutions this year in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas.

The judges’ rulings would seem incongruent, but a closer examination shows that they are entirely consistent, although both test the boundaries of the law establishing the prosecution’s burden of proof.

This week, Judge Timothy McCune announced his decision that the identity of a confidential informant will have to be disclosed in the case against Donald J. Hutchinson, 25. He faces felony counts of drug possession and criminal use of a communication facility related to two alleged undercover purchases of heroin a year ago in Butler.

Both transactions were done under surveillance, but conditions were less than ideal — in the first buy, agents neglected to photograph another person at the scene; and the second purchase happened outside of the agents’ line of sight. Ultimately, it comes down to the testimony of the confidential informant.

The prosecution still can seek anonymity for the witness if they can explain why revealing their identity puts them in danger. The conundrum in this case is that explaining the circumstances that endanger the witness would likely reveal the identity.

The Hutchinson case differs from a case against James C. Kidd, a convicted crystal methamphetamine manufacturer who is charged a second time with manufacture of meth, this time following a January raid on the Elm Court home of Ross Cammisa and his sister, Melissa Cammisa.

In that case, Judge William Shaffer denied Kidd’s motion to disclose the identities of two confidential drug informants who said Kidd had been cooking meth with Ross Cammisa.

Kidd’s attorney, Public Defender Joseph Smith, argued the charges against Kidd depend on the testimony of the confidential sources. While Kidd was not present at the time of the raid, and was not a resident at the home, the informants told police that he was also involved.

Smith argued that the identities of the informants should be made available to establish a defense of misidentification, because they are the only witnesses who would be available to testify. The co-defendants might choose not to testify and implicate themselves.

How are these cases different?

In the Hutchinson case, the prosecution falls apart without the confidential witness. In the Kidd case, the prosecution appears confident it can establish guilt without the testimony of the confidential witnesses. The proof might include evidence showing the meth recipe at Elm Court matched the recipe, method and ingredients involved in Kidd’s prior conviction. It might be a comparison of the brands and sources of the chemicals. It might be a record of cell phone calls and text messages sent from the Cammisas to Kidd. It might even be a chemical analysis of the finished methamphetamine. None of that probability exists in the Hutchinson case.

We’re 100-percent committed to District Attorney Richard Goldinger’s “Not in My Back Yard” campaign to crack down on drug trafficking in Butler County. We’ve seen more than enough death and devastation from addiction in recent years. We’re tired of it. We thirst for justice.

But at the same time, we cannot suspend constitutional rights in pursuit of security — and to be clear, the decisions by Judge Shaffer and Judge McCune both uphold and confirm the constitutional rights extended even to criminal defendants.