Opinion ID: 1816335
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Did the prosecution suppress evidence, thereby denying due process

Text: During the course of the cross-examination of the prosecuting witness, defense counsel brought up the matter of picture identification. Counsel asked, But he just showed you one picture? to which the victim responded, At the particular time, yes. The public defender now argues that this statement carries with it the implication that other pictures were shown to her at some other time and that, since the state did not introduce  testimony regarding the showing of other pictures, this court should assume that the prosecution suppressed testimony favorable to the defendant. A number of cases have discussed the responsibility of the state in respect to coming forward with important information in exclusive possession of the state which would bear upon the guilt or innocence of the defendant. In Brady v. Maryland (1963), 373 U. S. 83, 87, 83 Sup. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215, the United States Supreme Court said: ... 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. In the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice FORTAS in Giles v. Maryland (1967), 386 U. S. 66, 87 Sup. Ct. 793, 17 L. Ed. 2d 737, it was stated that, where there is a deliberate withholding of material information, the demand for production of the evidence is not necessary. However, in the instant case, there is nothing in the record which would indicate the materiality of undisclosed information. In fact, the public defender's contention that there was any undisclosed information is pure speculation. We are obliged to reject these contentions on the ground that there has been no showing whatsoever that the prosecution failed to disclose any information material to the case. It is also clear that, if the statement of the victim was pregnant with the admission that there was undisclosed information, defense counsel could have pursued the matter then and there. He failed to do so. An important factor in determining there was no denial of due process is the fact that defendant failed to pursue information that was available to him. United States v. Wilkins (2d Cir. 1964), 326 Fed. 2d 135. We are satisfied from a review of the entire record that the trial was free of constitutional error, that the  evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, and that there is no evidence that the conviction and sentencing of the defendant constituted a manifest injustice. By the Court. Judgment and order affirmed.