Opinion ID: 2097440
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Interference with Discovery

Text: Appellant alleges prosecutorial misconduct through State interference with his attorney's attempts to interview State's witness Schwarz and with his attempt to have appellant take a polygraph in jail. Neither allegation was made in the motion to correct error. Appellant's counsel asked Schwarz, Were you contacted by a private investigator representing himself as working for me on this case ...? Schwarz said he had been contacted and arranged a meeting but later called the investigator and told him that he should call the prosecutor's office and that they would meet us there for that meeting, and he didn't call me back. Schwarz said that, for his own convenience, he did not want to meet with the investigator without someone from the prosecutor's office because he knew he would have to repeat to them everything he told Van Cleave's investigator. The investigator testified that the deputy prosecutor told him he would be allowed to talk to Schwarz but that the deputy prosecutor would have to be present during the interview and that he would not allow the investigator to take Schwarz to the scene of the crime. A witness from a polygraph agency testified that his examiner had arranged to conduct the examination but was told that the deputy prosecutor had nixed the test. It appears from the record that on the day of the scheduled exam, however, appellant was in administrative lock-up following the jail disturbance. Van Cleave asserts he was prejudiced because his investigator was not permitted to ascertain Schwarz's exact location when he witnessed the shooting and because the polygraph might have revealed the clean-up statement and the details of the shooting. Because of appellant's failure to seek the trial court's assistance on these problems, this Court may conclude that counsel's preparation and investigation were in fact not hindered. See Dillard v. State (1971), 257 Ind. 282, 274 N.E.2d 387 (defendant must call trial court's attention to prosecution's non-compliance with discovery order). Furthermore, Schwarz's exact location was not a point of much contention or overall import. It has already been established that counsel's ignorance about the clean-up statement did not substantially affect the proceedings. Finally, several witnesses testified about the shooting and it not clear what more might have been revealed by a polygraph examination. Van Cleave's assertions of prejudice do not suffice to overcome the waiver doctrine or to bring the case within the purview of the many he cites in which misconduct and prejudice were clearly shown. See, e.g., Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213, 63 S.Ct. 177, 87 L.Ed.2d 214 (1942) (prosecutor's knowing use of perjured testimony and suppression of exculpatory evidence required reversal).