Opinion ID: 2586281
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Inadmissibility of the Jimenez Statements

Text: Assuming defendant's claim is cognizable under Brady, the People pose a further threshold issue in observing that evidence inadmissible at trial is immaterial under Brady and, therefore, the failure to disclose such inadmissible evidence is not a Brady violation. Defendant concedes that, at the joint trial, Alvarado's purported admissions would have been admissible against Alvarado but inadmissible as hearsay against defendant, and that if defendant's motion for severance had been granted, the Jimenez testimony could not have been admitted at his single trial for any purpose. Defendant claims, however, that even though the Jimenez testimony was not admissible against defendant individually, his due process claim must survive. The United States Supreme Court has never announced a bright line rule that only admissible evidence is material for purposes of a Brady violation. [28] Some federal and state courts, however, have held that unless the undisclosed evidence would have been admissible at trial, it need not have been disclosed under Brady. [29] Other courts have rejected admissibility as a prerequisite for determining Brady's applicability, as long as the information would have led to admissible evidence or been useful to the defense in structuring its case. [30] This court has not directly addressed the issue, although we have implied in dicta that admissibility might be a prerequisite to materiality. [31] In addition, this case presents the additional question of what aspect of admissibility is a prerequisite to Brady materiality in a joint trial: admissibility at trial generally, or admissibility as to the individual defendant making the Brady claim? Because the evidence on which defendant bases his Brady claim was admissible at the joint trial, for the reasons that follow, we conclude defendant may assert a Brady claim, even though the evidence was not admissible against him. [32] The Brady standard for materiality states the undisclosed evidence is to be evaluated in terms of how the result of the proceeding would have been different. ( United States v. Bagley, supra, 473 U.S. at p. 682, 105 S.Ct. 3375.) In addition, the evidence's materiality `must be evaluated in the context of the entire record.' ( In re Brown, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 887, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 698, 952 P.2d 715, quoting United States v. Agurs, supra, 427 U.S. at p. 112, 96 S.Ct. 2392.) In deciding whether asserted Brady evidence is material to defendant's case, it is therefore appropriate to examine the effect of the evidence on the actual joint proceeding in which defendant was tried.