Source: https://www.johntfloyd.com/the-impact-of-smith-v-cain/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 18:05:03+00:00

Document:
“The case involves numerous serious allegations of non-disclosure that, post-trial, a court must evaluate under this Court’s Brady jurisprudence. However, a prosecutor’s pre-trial ethical disclosure obligations, as governed by the attorney disciplinary rules of the state or jurisdiction in which the prosecutor practices, are separate from and broader than the constitutional standards.
Although the Court reversed the conviction in Smith v. Cain, the Justices did not even mention a prosecutor’s pre-trial ethical obligations to disclose Brady material. It was an affront to the ABA. But we suspect, as we long have, that the Supreme Court is determined to provide as much ethical and constitutional cover for “rogue prosecutors” as possible. Put simply, the Court wants the status quo to remain in place; namely, that the worst consequence a prosecutor can expect for committing a Brady violation is a slap-on-the-wrist reversal of the conviction involved, as it did in Smith v. Cain.
While the reversal of the illegally obtained conviction in Smith v. Cain is welcomed, it is terribly disappointing that the court did not step up to the plate and address the pre-trial ethical disclosure obligation. But that should not rain on the duty of criminal defense attorneys at the federal level to submit detailed, comprehensive letters of discovery to the Government in all criminal cases.
Inherent in the Brady duty to disclose is the requirement that the disclosure be made in a timely manner. For example, the Second Circuit, in United States v. Matthews, found a Rule 16 violation because the government attorney withheld a letter written by the defendant instead of disclosing it within a timely manner.
Thus, a discovery letter should include the warning that if the Brady material is not disclosed in a timely manner, a motion for a continuance and a request for sanctions will be filed with the court.
Most federal courts strongly believe that prosecutors should not make pre-trial discovery decisions regarding materiality of evidence “at the end of the [same] telescope” used by an appellate court post-trial.
Finally, the discovery letter should include the caution that, as stated in Virgin Islands v. Fahie, prosecutorial “bad faith” is “probative to materiality” as well as relevant to determining a remedy.
The Fourth Circuit in Monroe v. Angelone found a Brady violation because the cumulative effect of plea deals and inconsistent statements could have undermined the prosecution’s proof of premeditation and malice in first degree murder case.
The Second Circuit in Disimone v. Phillips found a Brady violation because exculpatory statement would have allowed the defense to investigate another party’s involvement.
Likewise, the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Sipe found a Brady violation because the cumulative effect of undisclosed statement, criminal history of witness, and benefit to testifying aliens undermined credibility of a key witness.
The Ninth Circuit in United States v. Santiago found a Brady violation because prosecutor had knowledge of and access to inmate files, including the defendant’s files held by Bureau of Prisons.
The Second Circuit in Leka v. Portuondofound a Brady violation because off-duty policeman’s undisclosed observations would have contradicted testimony of other witnesses.
The Third Circuit in United States v. Pelullo found a Brady violation because an FBI agent’s undisclosed notes and FBI surveillance tapes could have been used to impeach government witness whose credibility was central to case.
The District of Columbia in United States v. Cuffie found a Brady violation because undisclosed evidence of witness’s prior perjury could have impeached witness, even though the witness had been impeached by a cocaine addiction, cooperation with prosecution, incentives to lie, and violation of oath as police officer.
The Sixth Circuit in O’Hara v. Brigano found a Brady violation because undisclosed written statement by victim could have been used to impeach victim’s testimony.
Likewise, the Sixth Circuit Joseph v. Coyle found a Brady violation because witnesses’ undisclosed testimony transcripts, notes on witness interviews, and immunity agreement would have impeached prosecution’s crucial witness.
The Fifth Circuit in United States v. Miller found Brady violation because undisclosed referral letter could have been used to impeach witness at trial.
The Ninth Circuit in Singh v, Prunty found a Brady violation because of “favorable deal” given to a star witness.
Likewise, the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Strifler found a Brady violation when, after request by defendant, Government does not disclose information in probation file relevant to witness’s credibility on ground that it was privileged.
The First Circuit in Mastracchio v. Vosefound Brady violation because knowledge of Witness payments or favors made by the Witness Protection team is discoverable.
The Seventh Circuit in Crivens v. Roth found Brady violation because failure to disclose crimes committed by Government witness is Brady even when witness used aliases.
Likewise, the Seventh Circuit in United States v. Boydfound Brady violation for failure to disclose drug use and dealing by Government witness and “continuous stream of unlawful favors” including phone privileges, presents, and special visits.
The Sixth Circuit in Schledwitz v. United States found Brady violation because Government witness portrayed as neutral and disinterested expert had actually been investigating defendant for years.
The District of Columbia in United States v. Brooks found Brady violation if a specific request is made by defendant and Government does not search records of police officer/witnesses.
The Fifth Circuit in Guerra v. Johnson found Brady violation for failure to disclose police intimidation of key witnesses and information regarding suspect seen carrying murder weapon minutes after shooting.
The Eighth Circuit White v. Helling found a Brady violation in a 27 year old murder case because the Government did not disclose that its chief eyewitness had originally identified someone else and identified the defendant only after several meetings with the police.
The Fourth Circuit in Spicer v. Roxbury found a Brady violation because prosecutors did not disclose witness’s prior inconsistent statement that he did not see the defendant.
The Tenth Circuit in Banks v. Reynolds found a Brady violation because prosecutors did not disclose another individual or individuals had been arrested for the same charge.
The Ninth Circuit in United States v. Service Deli, Inc. found a Brady violation because prosecutors failed to turn over original notes from witness interview that contained three pieces of impeachment information which showed the witness’s statement had changed—a change that may have been induced by threats of imprisonment and witness’s claim that he had suffered a stroke.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Ex parte Mowbray found a Brady violation because prosecutors failed to disclose exculpatory expert report.
Cathy A. Brook, Executive Director for the Federal Defender Program for the Northern District of Illinois presented a paper on “Federal Criminal Discovery” at a 2010 Orientation Seminar for Assistant Federal Defenders. This paper is an excellent review of the kinds of discovery mandated under Fed.R.Crim.P. 16—the primary statutory source for Brady discovery as pointed out by the court in United States v. Griggs. The Rule, as noted by the Fourth Circuit in United States v. Jeffers, is a “mandatory” direction to the Government to inspect and copy certain information, but only upon defense request.
Rule 16(a)(1)(A) requires, upon defense request, that the Government disclose defendant’s relevant oral statement made in response to a person the defendant knew was a government agent if the Government intends to use the statement at trial. The following rules have emerged under this section: 1) the substance of any relevant oral statements not reduced to writing where statements were made by defendant to a person defendant knew to be a Government agent; 2) statement must have been made in response to interrogation before or after arrest; 3) Government must intend to “use” statement; 4) defendant generally not entitled to his/her oral statements made to a third person which were later repeated to Government agents, unless a written record is contemplated at time defendant’s oral statements are made; 5) written statements made by the defendant to a third person who gave them to a Government agent who put them in a report; 6) all grand jury testimony of the defendant, “which relates to the offense charged”; 7) defendant is generally only entitled to co-conspirator or co-defendant statements which are admissible against defendant under F.R.E. 801(d)(2)(E) if the Government does not intend to call the co-conspirator as a witness; and 8) disclosure of co-defendant’s statements is discretionary, but refusal to order will not be error unless specific motion for disclosure is made.
Rule 16(a)(1)(B) rules concerning discovery of the written or recorded statement.
Subsection (B)(i) requires Government to furnish the defense with all relevant written or recorded statements made by the defendant which are in the custody or control of the Government and which are known to the Government or by the exercise of due diligence may become known to the Government.
Subsection (B)(ii) requires Government to furnish to the defense: 1) written records containing the substance of relevant oral statements made by defendant to a person defendant knew to be a government agent in response to interrogation, before and after arrest.
Rule 16(a)(1)(C) pertains to the “organizational” defendant statements which state that, upon request, the Government must disclose a organizational defendant’s written or oral statements which meet the requirements of (a)(1)(A) and (a)(1)(B) and which were made by a person who could legally bind the defendant.
Rule 16(a)(1)(D) contains the rules regarding disclosure of defendant’s prior record. This subsection 1) permits discovery of defendant’s “rap” sheet, requested from FBI, Probation Office, and state.
Rule 16(a)(1)(E) contains the rules regarding disclosure of documents and objects. This subsection provides that the defense is entitled to and requires: 1) all documents material to defense; 2) documents Government intends to introduce in its case-in-chief; 3) obtain originals of fingerprints and handwriting exemplars; 4) request all lineup photos, photographic show-ups, and reports stating results of such and the circumstances surrounding them in preparation for possible motions to suppress; 5) request drug dog training and handling records; 6) request information available to Government showing similar activities by person other than the defendant, such as bank robberies; and 7) look for cases where shoe is on other foot.
Rule 16(a)(1)(F) contains the rules regarding disclosure of examinations and tests. Defense entitled to results or reports of tests and exams which are in the possession or control of the Government and are known to the Government or by the exercise of due diligence may become known to the government and which: 1) are material to the defense or the Government intends to introduce in its case-in-chief; 2) requires exercise of due diligence; 3) request results of all lab tests; 4) request result of handwriting, hair, fingernail, voice, etc.
comparisons; 5) request samples on which to conduct independent tests; 6) not sufficient for Government to argue materials were released to prior attorney; 7) narcotic dog’s training records, standards, etc. are discoverable; and 8) courts are split on whether defendants are entitled to underlying data or lab protocols.
Rule 16(a)(1)(G) contains the rules regarding the disclosure of experts. This subsection requires Government to furnish upon defendant’s request written summary of expert testimony Government intends to use during case-in-chief, including: 1) notice of expert’s qualifications, necessary to determine whether witness is actually an expert; 2) disclosure of summary of expected testimony and list of cases in which witness has testified; and 3) disclosure of summary of basis for expert’s opinion, whether or not expert prepares a report. This subsection particularly requires timely disclosure.
A discovery letter should be as comprehensive, clear and concise as possible. It may, along with discovery and Brady motions, have to be used on appeal. Smith v. Cain underscores that the only remedy for a defendant who has been the victim of a Brady violation is reversal of conviction, which may come years after the defendant has been convicted. A comprehensive discovery letter highlighting all of a prosecutor’s pre-trial ethical obligation and post-trial “materiality” obligations may deter some prosecutors contemplating withholding key favorable evidence. But this process begins with that discovery letter.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.