Opinion ID: 1490004
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Police Reports and Witness Statements

Text: The hearing justice also found that John Brown was ineffective because he did not review all the police reports, witness statements, and other discovery materials with Brown before his trial. Brown testified at the postconviction-relief hearing that: I didn't start receiving discovery from Attorney Brown until after I was in prison for a year at the maximum security. I didn't even see any of the motions. The only thing he gave me before trial is a copy of the Grand Jury transcripts. I never even had a copy of the police report until after I was convicted and in jail for a year. However, Brown also testified that during a meeting in John Brown's office, his attorney let him read a few of the witnesses' statements; nevertheless, he continued to maintain that the only copies of any material he received before his trial were the grand jury transcripts. When she granted Brown's application, the hearing justice said: The first time Mr. Brown saw any police report was after he had been sentenced and in jail for one year. It is unthinkable that effective counsel would not exhaustively review with an accused all police reports and witness statements well in advance of trial to determine if one should go to trial or negotiate a plea. Although Brown testified that he did not receive copies of the discovery motions or police reports prior to his trial, there is sparse evidence in the record to support a conclusion that John Brown failed to review the police reports, witness statements, and other discovery with his client. In fact, there is evidence in the record to the contrarythat John Brown did indeed review these materials with his client. John Brown testified that he remained in constant contact with Brown throughout the criminal proceedings, had many meetings with his client, and was actively involved in the discovery process based on input he received from Brown. It is our opinion that the hearing justice erred when she found that John Brown was deficient in this regard because both men testified that the lawyer did review discovery materials with his client. Moreover, similar to our analysis of Dr. Tanguay's testimony, even if we assumed that John Brown failed to properly review discovery materials with Brown, an assessment not supported by the record, there is no evidence that this deficiency prejudiced Brown's defense. Brown concedes that the hearing justice did not make a finding as to how any failure to review discovery materials prejudiced him. Brown argues that the hearing justice reviewed all the areas where she believed John Brown misstepped when she decided that the aggregate of his shortcomings prejudiced Brown to such a degree that his constitutional rights were violated. That conclusion, however, must have an adequate foundation in the record because [a]n applicant who files an application for postconviction relief bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that such relief is warranted. Mattatall, 947 A.2d at 901 n. 7. Brown's task is to demonstrate that John Brown `made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the counsel guaranteed [Brown] by the Sixth Amendment,' and that `the deficient performance prejudiced the defense [and] deprive[d] [Brown] of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.' State v. Brouillard, 745 A.2d 759, 768 (R.I.2000) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052). The record before us is simply devoid of evidence that would demonstrate that John Brown's alleged errors, whether viewed individually or collectively, prejudiced Brown's defense to that degree and deprived him of a fair trial. [18]