Opinion ID: 1547506
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Brady Request

Text: About a month before trial, defense counsel wrote a letter to the prosecutor requesting, in addition to all the discovery materials you have provided (for which she expressed her thanks), that the government disclose (1) Michael Scott's criminal record, (2) Scott's history of dealings with law enforcement authorities in relation to these 8/18/01 arrests and any other cases, [6] (3) any information that Scott was the source or conduit of any of the drugs that were the subject of the pending indictment, and (4) any information that ... Scott is known or was known in 2001 to police as a purveyor of cocaine. Such information, counsel wrote, looks to me like Brady.  During a motion hearing just before the trial began, defense counsel told the court that the government had not complied with her Brady request. The prosecutor explained to the court that, after running Scott's name through the government's computers, the only information he was able to find was the police report in this case (Form PD-163) stating that Scott was present at the scene, which counsel already had. The prosecutor added that the officers had questioned Scott at the scene, but he was released because they determined that he had no apparent connection to the drug deal. The court concluded that if defense counsel had the police report, the government didn't suppress anything, and ruled that the government's disclosures [were] sufficient to deal with the specific Brady request. Nevertheless, the court suggested that the prosecutor make further inquiry of the officers, run a records check for Scott's last known address, and provide, if available, any information concerning Scott's address or criminal history. The prosecutor said he had already spoken to the officers and they did not recall getting that information from him, but he agreed to investigate about it a little further. The proceedings were then adjourned for the weekend. The following Tuesday, after the jury had been selected and sworn, defense counsel again informed the court at a bench conference that the government still had not furnished Scott's address. [7] The court responded, I can't create evidence out of non-evidence. All I can do is put the government to its constitutional obligation ... to make sure that [if] they have any information which could be exculpatory [under] Brady, [and if] it's material, that they disclose it. The prosecutor also stated that he had talked with and examined the notebooks of every officer who was on the scene, and that none of the officers even remembered Scott until the prosecutor pointed out his name in the PD-163. The trial proceeded, and at its conclusion the jury found appellant guilty of distributing cocaine.