Opinion ID: 728079
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Motion for Exculpatory Evidence

Text: 22 Blais contends that the district court erred in quashing certain subpoenas issued for the suppression hearing. On appeal, Blais points to quashed subpoenas for arrest records and reports of the Providence Police Department, including the report of the officers' interview with McGill. 23 First, Blais argues that the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, entitles him to these documents. However, the Act establishes procedures whereby a criminal defendant may exercise his limited right to obtain previous statements made by government witnesses that are in the possession of the United States to be used for impeachment purposes. United States v. Neal, 36 F.3d 1190, 1197 (1st Cir.1994). McGill was not a government witness and did not testify. The statements of all the witnesses who did testify at the suppression hearing were turned over. 24 Second, Blais contends that the sought-after information constituted material he was entitled to under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), for impeachment purposes. However, Brady error occurs when the government suppresses material information that is favorable to the defense. See Gilday v. Callahan, 59 F.3d 257, 267 (1st Cir.1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 1269, 134 L.Ed.2d 216 (1996). Information is material if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3383, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985). Blais has failed to articulate any theory demonstrating such a reasonable probability. 25 In fact, Blais has failed to show that any of the additional arrest records or police reports that he seeks even exist. Indeed, McGill's statement could not have been exculpatory. While her complaint was the impetus for the officers' and the security guard's visit, her statement could have had no relevance to the issues at the suppression hearing: whether Blais admitted the officers to his apartment voluntarily and whether the firearm was in plain view. As a result, we uphold the district court's decision to quash the subpoenas at issue.