Opinion ID: 1145366
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Daily's Proposed Testimony

Text: The first prong, which must be satisfied in order to establish a Brady violation, is nondisclosure or suppression by the prosecution. Wolf, 839 F.2d at 1391; Moore, 408 U.S. at 794-95, 92 S.Ct. at 2568. In Moore, the defendant appealed his conviction for murder claiming, in part, that he was denied a fair trial because the prosecution failed to disclose exculpatory statements made by prosecution witnesses to the prosecutor. Moore, 408 U.S. at 793-94, 92 S.Ct. at 2567. In holding that the Brady rule was not implicated, the Moore court said, [w]e know of no constitutional requirement that the prosecution make a complete and detailed accounting to the defense of all police investigatory work. Moore, 408 U.S. at 795, 92 S.Ct at 2568. In this regard, we have said the prosecution has no duty to manufacture evidence. Wilde v. State, 706 P.2d 251, 255 (Wyo.1985). The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has developed a standard for determining whether evidence has been suppressed for purposes of the Brady rule. It stated: Evidence is not suppressed if the defendant either knew or should have known of the essential facts permitting him to take advantage of any exculpatory evidence. [citations omitted] United States v. LeRoy, 687 F.2d 610, 618 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied 459 U.S. 1174, 103 S.Ct. 823, 74 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1983). Applying this standard to the facts of this case leads to the conclusion that the prosecution did not suppress Daily for Brady purposes. The prosecutor disclosed Daily to Relish as a potential prosecution witness in a pretrial document titled Memorandum of Matters Agreed Upon. The prosecution's disclosure of Daily, by including his name on the stipulated witness list, was sufficient to meet any duty the prosecutor may have had under Brady. The witness list revealed to Relish that Daily was a potential government witness which should have alerted Relish that Daily might have relevant information concerning the case. This result is in accord with Jackson v. Wainwright, 390 F.2d 288 (5th Cir.1968), United States v. Beasley, 442 F.Supp. 1152 (E.D.La.1977) and People v. DeStefano, 30 Ill.App.3d 935, 332 N.E.2d 626 (1975), all of which suggest that a simple disclosure of a witness' identity is sufficient unless it is combined with a misrepresentation by the prosecutor. In Jackson, the Fifth Circuit held that the prosecution's disclosure of a witness who had exculpatory information by name and address only was insufficient because the prosecution affirmatively misled the defendant concerning the value of the witness' information. Jackson, 390 F.2d at 298. In Beasley, following a conviction, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial arguing, in part, that the prosecutor was aware that certain witnesses' testimony would favor the defense and that the prosecutor had a duty to communicate that awareness to the defense. Beasley, 442 F.Supp. at 1157. That court rejected Beasley's contention, finding no duty for the prosecutor to disclose his own view of potential testimony and stating: The defense had every opportunity to call [the witnesses], their testimony was not concealed or misrepresented by the government, and the decision not to call them was a strategic and knowing one. Beasley, 442 F.Supp. at 1157. In DeStefano, an Illinois Appeals Court held that a defendant was denied a fair trial due to the prosecution's deliberate misrepresentation concerning a material witness. DeStefano, 332 N.E.2d at 631. In that case the prosecutor gave the defense a witness list which stated, George Leighton, address unknown, despite the fact that George Leighton was a Justice of the Illinois Appellate Court who had chambers in the same building as the prosecutor. Id. Relish asserts in his brief that Daily's name was omitted from the State's witness list despite what the record reveals. However, at oral argument, Relish's counsel admitted that Daily's name was on the witness list and instead implied that the prosecutor had misled him after he inquired about Daily. This claim is apparently asserted for the first time on appeal. We agree with the reasoning employed in Jackson, Beasley and DeStefano, that is, disclosure of the witness' name is sufficient to satisfy Brady and, in the absence of an affirmative misrepresentation concerning the witness or the testimony of the witness, will defeat a claim of concealment or suppression of evidence. Relish was provided with Daily's name before trial, and there is absolutely no evidence in the record to establish that the prosecution concealed or misrepresented the content of Daily's opinions. Therefore, we hold that the prosecutor did not suppress potentially material evidence concerning Daily. The second and third prongs of the Brady rule require that the suppressed testimony be favorable to the defendant and that it be material. Having determined that the evidence was not suppressed by the prosecution, we need not explore or determine the effect of satisfying these prongs of Brady upon this case, and we decline to do so.