Opinion ID: 2518344
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Was the follow-up investigation report suppressed?

Text: The second element of a Brady claim is that the evidence must have been suppressed by the government. ( Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. at p. 282, 119 S.Ct. 1936; Banks v. Dretke, supra, 540 U.S. at p. 691, 124 S.Ct. 1256.) Although the prosecution may not withhold favorable and material evidence from the defense, neither does it have the duty to conduct the defendant's investigation for him. ( People v. Morrison (2004) 34 Cal.4th 698, 715, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 682, 101 P.3d 568.) If the material evidence is in a defendant's possession or is available to a defendant through the exercise of due diligence, then, at least as far as evidence is concerned, the defendant has all that is necessary to ensure a fair trial, even if the prosecution is not the source of the evidence. ( Coe v. Bell (6th Cir.1998) 161 F.3d 320, 344; U.S. v. Pandozzi (1st Cir.1989) 878 F.2d 1526, 1529-1530.) Accordingly, evidence is not suppressed unless the defendant was actually unaware of it and could not have discovered it `by the exercise of reasonable diligence.' ( People v. Morrison, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 715, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 682, 101 P.3d 568; see generally Strickler v. Greene, supra, 527 U.S. at p. 282, 119 S.Ct. 1936 [the inquiry whether cause exists to excuse a procedural default parallels the inquiry whether the government suppressed evidence]; Banks v. Dretke, supra, 540 U.S. at p. 691, 124 S.Ct. 1256 [same].) Petitioner asserts categorically that [t]rial counsel could not possibly have had knowledge of that reinvestigation report unless the prosecutor obtained it from police and gave it to him. The Attorney General responds that newspaper articles concerning Dr. Ribe's credibility appeared well before trial, that defense counsel therefore had a basis for inquiring into Dr. Ribe's performance in previous cases, and that defense counsel, with reasonable diligence, could have obtained the follow-up investigation report himself. As interesting as this debate may be, we find it unnecessary to remand the matter to the Court of Appeal to determine whether the follow-up investigation report was suppressed entirely or, alternatively, whether information that could have led to its discovery was disclosed too late for petitioner to make meaningful use of it because (as explained in the next part) we find that the follow-up investigation report was not material. (See U.S. v. Gonzalez (2d Cir.1997) 110 F.3d 936, 944.) [6]