Opinion ID: 6358387
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Commonwealth violated its Brady obligations

Text: Brown next raises a brief and cursory Brady challenge, arguing that the Commonwealth failed to provide trial counsel with a complete report of Anderson's juvenile criminal history. Brown's Brief at 343. As discussed above, the FBI excerpt provided to trial counsel contained certain errors and omissions. The United States Supreme Court in Brady established that suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. Commonwealth v. Reid , 627 Pa. 151 , 99 A.3d 470 , 496-97 (2014) (citing Brady , 373 U.S. at 87 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 ). To succeed on a Brady claim, an individual must prove the following:  (1) the prosecutor has suppressed evidence; (2) the evidence, whether exculpatory or impeaching, is helpful to the defendant; and (3) the suppression of the evidence prejudiced the defendant. Commonwealth v. Busanet, 618 Pa. 1 , 54 A.3d 35 , 48 (2012). To obtain a new trial based on the Commonwealth's failure to disclose evidence affecting a witness's credibility, a defendant must demonstrate that the reliability of the witness may be determinative of the defendant's guilt or innocence. Commonwealth v. Weiss, 604 Pa. 573 , 986 A.2d 808 , 815 (2000 [2009] ). Id. This Court has established that the prosecutorial duty under Brady respecting exculpatory evidence is limited to information in the possession of prosecutors or in the files of police agencies[,] limited to those agencies of the same government bringing the prosecution. Commonwealth v. Watkins , 630 Pa. 652 , 108 A.3d 692 , 711-12 (2014). As a result, Commonwealth prosecutors are not responsible to secure and disclose information held by federal authorities. Id. Here, the Commonwealth provided to trial counsel the information in its possession (the FBI excerpt), and had no obligation to investigate the accuracy of that information (as the FBI was not involved in bringing charges against Brown). We further agree with the PCRA court's observation that Brown point[s] to no authority which states that the Commonwealth has to go above and beyond turning over a witness'[ ] FBI extract, or which states that the Commonwealth itself acted unreasonably in relying upon the information contained in that. Rule 907 Notice, 4/7/2016, at 24.