Opinion ID: 475335
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The State Court Findings

Text: 60 Judge Naifeh made the following findings which relate to a request by the defense for a list of other suspects: 61 1. That no motion for discovery of exculpatory evidence was filed by trial defense counsel on behalf of the Defendant. 62 .... 63 28. That the information regarding Crowe could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence as the defendant could have requested a list of all suspects prior to trial but failed to do so. 64 .... 65 36. That Frank Wright, an attorney for the Defendant, testified he orally asked the District Attorney if there were any other suspects and was told that none existed. 66 .... 67 41. That the District Attorney's office considered the hypnosis of one witness, plus the arrest of a suspect named Simmons, to possibly be exculpatory evidence and that this information was provided to counsel for the Co-Defendant, Harold Behrens, pursuant to a Brady motion, but not given to Raymond Burger, trial counsel for the Defendant, because Mr. Burger made no request and apparently discovered this information before trial. 68 Rec., vol. I, fed. habeas, doc. no. 35, at 1, 5, 6, 8 app. The parties dispute whether these findings preclude the possibility that an oral, informal request was made by Mr. Wright. The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that: 69 Appellant alleges in his appeal and in his second motion for new trial that reversible error occurred when the prosecution failed to deliver exculpatory evidence to defense counsel. However, the record does not reveal that defense counsel made a formal request for exculpatory evidence, though trial counsel contends he made an oral pretrial inquiry as to the existence of other suspects to which the prosecution answered in the negative. 70 .... 71 Appellant asserts the suppression of the allegedly exculpatory evidence regarding these suspects denied him due process of law under the authority of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). However, as appellant recognizes, no request was made for exculpatory evidence prior to trial. 72 Bowen, 715 P.2d at 1098 (emphasis added). 73 It is unclear whether either the state trial court or the Court of Criminal Appeals implicitly decided that no informal, oral request had been made or rather did not reach the issue because they believed that an oral request was not legally equivalent to a motion or written request. 7 If either court did find that no request of any kind had been made, this would be a finding of historical fact, see Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 309 n. 6, 83 S.Ct. 745, 755 n. 6, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963) (citing Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 506, 73 S.Ct. 397, 445, 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953) (opinion of Frankfurter, J.)), entitled to a presumption of correctness by federal courts under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254(d).