Opinion ID: 2785252
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Belated Disclosure of Exculpatory Evidence

Text: At the close of the People’s case, Fitzpatrick disclosed the existence of an August 1988 affidavit from one Joe Morgan, in which Morgan attested that an individual named Patsy Barricella had admitted to Morgan that he (Barricella) murdered Hill. Trial Tr. at 19 Rivas contends that Mitchell committed perjury when he testified that he had examined ‚brain slides,‛ because the medical examiner’s file did not, in fact, contain any such slides. The state concedes that there were no ‚brain slides‛—that is, sectional slides containing actual brain tissue. It argues, however, that there were in fact two photographic slides containing images of Hill’s brain, and that Mitchell may have been referring to those slides in his testimony. We need not, and therefore do not, address Rivas’s allegation that Mitchell committed perjury. We note, however, that Fitzpatrick specifically characterized the slides in question as ‚autopsy sectional slides‛ in his closing argument. Trial Tr. at 1082–83. Furthermore, Rivas’s expert, Dr. Cyril Wecht, has testified [at the federal evidentiary hearing before the District Court in 2009] that a forensic pathologist would ‚not use the word slide synonymously with a photograph.‛ Remand Hearing Tr.[, dated Sept. 21 & 22, 2009,] at 27. In any case, Wecht has also testified [before the state collateral review court in 1999] that, even if Mitchell had examined ‚brain slides‛ (that is, sectional slides), such a review is ‚totally unreliable‛ as a means of determining the time of death, because the sections of the brain contained in such slides continue to decompose for up to ten days after the brain is placed in a formalin bath for preservation. See Aff. of Cyril H. Wecht[, dated June 11, 1999,] Supp. Section 440.10 Mot. at 6. 25 947–48.20 Recognizing that this evidence was ‚exculpatory without a doubt,‛ id. at 984, the trial judge allowed Calle, Rivas’s attorney, to decide whether to adjourn and attempt to call Morgan or Barricella as witnesses, or instead to bring out the information contained in the affidavits by examining the Syracuse police officer who had interviewed Morgan. Calle opted to draw the information out of the police officer, Michael Ostuni. Id. at 987. According to [Officer] Ostuni, Morgan claimed that he had a conversation with his friend and neighbor Barricella in March 1988, at which time Barricella confessed to killing ‚the girl on Hickok Avenue.‛ Section 440.10 Mot. Exh. 8. In addition, Barricella had, according to Morgan, driven by the crime scene several times as police were investigating Hill’s murder and was stopped by police as a result. (Indeed, a contemporaneous police report revealed that Barricella was stopped by police after driving by the crime scene repeatedly. See Section 440.10 Mot. Exhs. 9 & 10.) However, on cross- examination by the District Attorney, Ostuni also testified that Morgan was a con artist and career criminal who had contacted the police from a county jail cell, demanding release as a quid pro quo for cooperation. Trial Tr. at 998–1000. Ostuni further 20 Though it is unclear when Fitzpatrick first became aware of or obtained Morgan’s affidavit itself, the trial transcript suggests that he was in possession of at least some documents relating to Morgan before opening statements were made, and thus well before this information was turned over to the defense. See Trial Tr. at 65. 26 testified that Barricella was known to be ‚mildly mentally retarded.‛ Id. at 1001.