Opinion ID: 788147
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Brady Violation Concerning the Rope

Text: 377 At the PCRA hearing, Allen Means explained how a bloodhound found the nylon rope after it was scented with Buck's sweater. Means, the dog's handler, testified that he called over an individual named John Forwood to come retrieve it. But the police report from the river search, which was provided to Lambert, stated: A white sweater worn by def. Tabatha Buck was brought to the scene by myself for use of the bloodhound. . . . The dog was unable to locate any evidence. A foot search was conducted along the banks and wooded areas. At approx. 1045 hrs. John Forwood of W.E.S.T. found white nylon rope on the bank approx. 2 feet south from where the knife was found the previous day. 378 Appellate App. 1563. Thus, Lambert never learned that the rope was found using a dog scented with Buck's sweater. 379 The PCRA Court determined that the government did not violate Brady by failing to turn over this evidence because the fact that the dog was scented with Buck's sweater was not exculpatory. Lambert argues that the PCRA Court's determination was erroneous because Buck's scent on the rope was inconsistent with the Commonwealth's theory of the case (that Lambert killed Show while Buck passively watched). Lambert Br. 90. 380 But Lambert mischaracterizes the government's position at trial. We have come across no portion of the trial record where the government contended that Buck watched passively while Lambert murdered Show. The government never disputed that Buck was present in Show's apartment and involved in the murder, and the presence of her scent on the rope neither inculpates nor exculpates Lambert. As the PCRA Court explained, just because Ms. Buck's scent was on the rope does not mean that Ms. Lambert's was not. There was no testimony that the dog attempted to trace Ms. Lambert's scent and failed. This `evidence' that Ms. Buck's scent was on the rope does not exculpate Ms. Lambert. PCRA Decision 141. We agree. The PCRA Court's determination was not contrary to or an unreasonable interpretation of federal law. 381