Opinion ID: 299690
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Motion for Discovery

Text: 26 Mrs. Littlejohn alleges that the district court committed reversible error in refusing to grant requests numbers 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 of her motion for discovery. The district court based its refusal to allow discovery as to the questioned matters on the ground that Mrs. Littlejohn had failed in her burden to show the materiality and reasonableness of her requests. (R. at 521). Furthermore, the trial judge found requests 7, 9, 10 and 11 to be precluded by Rule 16(b)'s exclusion of the work product of the Government and of statements made by Government witnesses. (R. at 521-22). 27 Rule 16(b) provides, inter alia, that discovery if otherwise appropriate may be ordered upon a showing of materiality to the preparation of [the] defense and that the request is reasonable. The record discloses no such showing by or on behalf of Mrs. Littlejohn. However, there is authority for the proposition that no proof of reasonableness or materiality is required with respect to matters enumerated in Rule 16(a), but rather that discovery of those items is an almost automatic right. Rezneck, The New Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 54 Geo.L.J. 1277 (1966). And subsection (a)(2) of Rule 16 specifically alludes to results or reports of    scientific tests or experiments made in connection with the particular case   . 28 On appeal, Mrs. Littlejohn alleges that in request number 7-demanding disclosure of any and all Government reports-she was seeking discovery of the Government's laboratory tests as to the identity of the contents of the package in issue. Although [t]here is no requirement in Rule 16 (a) that defendant designate those materials he seeks, since frequently he will be unaware of their existence, it would seem that the defendant should not be allowed to conduct a fishing expedition. 4 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure 63 (Wright ed. Supp. 1967). Furthermore, Rule 16(b) excludes all reports other than those enumerated in Rule 16(a)(2) from the discovery process. Mrs. Littlejohn's request number 7 was not worded in terms of all scientific reports but rather in terms of any and all reports. Although her right to discover the laboratory reports might be almost automatic, it could be said that she had some minimum burden of showing that she was seeking disclosure of items permitted in subsection (a)(2) of Rule 16. 5 29 She never apprised the district court of a desire to see scientific reports; she asked for any and all reports. It would seem wrong to hold the district court in error for refusing such a broad request. Mrs. Littlejohn should have phrased her motion more narrowly. Finally, it should be noted that the strategy of Mrs. Littlejohn's defense did not involve an attack upon the veracity of the laboratory reports. Rather, it was her contention that she received no box containing anything remotely resembling marijuana, but that the box contained a ring and a picture book. If that were true, the results of the laboratory reports were immaterial, and at most the district judge's refusal to permit discovery constitutes harmless error. 30 None of Mrs. Littlejohn's other requests for discovery fall within Rule 16(a). Therefore the district court's finding seems sustainable that she failed to make the requisite showing of materiality and reasonableness. 6 31 However, the impact of Brady v. Maryland, 1963, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215, on Mrs. Littlejohn's argument with respect to request number 9-seeking disclosure of exculpatory evidence-should be noted. In Brady, the United States Supreme Court averred: 32 We now hold that the 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. 33 Id. at 87, 83 S.Ct. at 1196. Commenting on the interplay between Rule 16 and Brady, one legal writer has said: 34 Since Rule 16(b) clearly permits discovery more broadly than due process requires, in doubtful cases courts should grant discovery sought under the rule and thus avoid the constitutional question. Liberality in passing on discovery motions under this rule also would be consistent with the Supreme Court's recognition that 'disclosure, rather [than] suppression, of relevant materials ordinarily promotes the proper administration of criminal justice.' 35 4 Barron & Holtzoff, supra at 65, quoting from Dennis v. United States, 1966, 384 U.S. 855, 869, 86 S.Ct. 1840, 16 L.Ed.2d 973. 36 Nonetheless, it cannot in good conscience be said that the district court violated the precepts expounded upon in Brady. First, the rubric announced therein spoke in terms of materiality. No proof or suggestion of the existence of material evidence tending to exculpate Mrs. Littlejohn was advanced. Second, although he denied request number 9 of Mrs. Littlejohn, the district judge was quick to point out: 37 Although the Brady doctrine has developed in the context of post-conviction proceedings, it is generally conceded that information having a material bearing on defense preparation should be disclosed well in advance of trial. In light of the work-product and Government-witness exclusions of Rule 16 [(b)], as well as the other factors which may preclude an order granting discovery under that rule, the courts necessarily must rely on the good faith and intelligence of the prosecution in making the appropriate Brady disclosures in advance of trial. 38 (R. at 522). There is no reason to believe that the Government violated that command. 7 In sum, the district court can be sustained though it refused to grant discovery as to exculpatory evidence sought under Rule 16 when, at the same time, it noted the Government's duty to disclose any such evidence. If error, the denial of request number 9 was harmless. 39 In our opinion the rulings of the district court as to matters of discovery are sound, and there is sufficient evidence to sustain the guilty verdict. 40 Affirmed.