Opinion ID: 2567623
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Referee's analysis and findings: first report

Text: The referee filed his first report on June 4, 2002. In it, he stated: Petitioner's trial counsel assert that they did not receive, or know about, the Montez letter before the entry of judgment in either case. The trial record in the Black and Hosey cases corroborates this assertion. No portion of the trial record has been identified as indicating that defense counsel were aware of, or were using, the subject matter of the Montez letter in representing petitioner through the entry of judgment in the Black and Hosey cases. Respondent offered evidence that the general discovery practices of the prosecutors assigned to the Black and Hosey cases were to provide the defense with all discoverable materials, either by turning over the documents or providing access to the prosecution files. However, respondent offered no evidence that anyone involved in the prosecution of the Black and Hosey cases recalls that, prior to entry of judgment in either case, the Montez letter was provided to anyone involved in petitioner's defense. A prosecution discovery transmittal letter and file log were admitted into evidence. These documents did not contain any reference to the Montez letter. It would be unreasonable to find that experienced defense counsel, in defending against a charge of murder, were so inadequate in defending petitioner that they: a. Failed to review thoroughly the contents of each item of discovery received from the prosecutors and thereby overlooked the Montez letter; or b. Were aware of the contents of the Montez letter prior to the entry of judgment and chose not to make some use of it.