Opinion ID: 1727306
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Were the Photographs Suppressed?

Text: Way's resentencing counsel testified at the evidentiary hearing that the photographs were first found by the defense when preparing for the resentencing proceedings. Resentencing counsel testified that he asked Michael Benito, who was the trial prosecutor in this case, if that was all the evidence. In response, Benito showed resentencing counsel a box full of photographs that had been in Benito's desk rather than with the rest of the file. Resentencing counsel further testified that Benito stated the box was full of photographs that essentially we never used, we never showed to anybody. If you want them take a look at them. The photographs at issue were in that box. Benito testified he did not recall whether this conversation occurred or when these specific photographs had been disclosed to the defense. However, Benito testified that at all times he had maintained an open file policy. The trial court found that trial counsel did not have possession of the disputed photos at trial. The trial court further found that the photographs were part of the file of an expert witness, Henry Regalado, who testified at trial on behalf of the State and who also gave a deposition prior to trial. In finding that the photographs had been disclosed, even though trial counsel did not have possession of the photographs, the trial court relied on the expert witness's testimony that he had brought the photographs to the deposition and his report that stated that photographs were also taken by Mr. Regalado, some of which are included in this report, with the remainder being on file at Regalado's office. There was no testimony at the evidentiary hearing as to whether the defense knew of the presence of the photographs at the deposition. However, the trial court found, This report was provided to trial counsel and was used by him during his deposition of Mr. Regalado. Mr. Regalado had the photos with him at the deposition, available for viewing and/or copying. A trial court's finding after evaluating conflicting evidence that Brady material had been disclosed is a factual finding. See United States v. Willis, 759 F.2d 1486 (11th Cir.1985); Squires v. Dugger, 794 F.Supp. 1568 (M.D.Fla.1992). As a factual finding, the reviewing court should uphold the finding as long as it is supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record. See Stephens v. State, 748 So.2d 1028 (Fla.1999). In previous cases, this Court has broadly stated that evidence was not suppressed where it was equally available to the State and the defense. See Roberts v. State, 568 So.2d 1255, 1260 (Fla.1990); James v. State, 453 So.2d 786, 790 (Fla. 1984). However, in those cases, the defendant was aware of the exculpatory information. See Roberts, 568 So.2d at 1260 (defendant aware of evidence that would show he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol during the crime); James, 453 So.2d at 790 (defendant was aware of existence of photographs contained in confidential juvenile records). This case is also unlike Provenzano v. State, 616 So.2d 428 (Fla.1993), where the defendant claimed that the State had suppressed the notes taken by the State's expert witness. The Court found that these notes had not been suppressed because the expert used the notes while testifying at trial, and the defendant could have obtained them at that time. See id. Thus, the defendant in Provenzano should have been actually aware of the expert's notes. However, in this case, there is no evidence that the expert witness referred to the disputed photographs during his deposition or his trial testimony. Indeed, none of Regalado's deposition or trial testimony discussed the electrical panel. Further, and most significantly, at a pretrial hearing occurring after Regalado's deposition, the prosecutor affirmatively assured the defense that all photographs of the crime scene had already been produced. [11] In light of these representations, the State may have unintentionally caused the defense lawyer to assume that all of the photographs of the crime scene had been produced, including those in the expert witness's report. Cf. Bagley, 473 U.S. at 683, 105 S.Ct. 3375 (finding that prosecutor's response to discovery request may have misleadingly induced defense counsel to believe that impeachment evidence did not exist). Therefore, as a matter of law, we find that a finding of disclosure would be inconsistent with Brady where, as here, the State affirmatively represented that all the photographs of the crime scene had been produced. As to the issue of whether trial counsel should have been aware of the photographs because all photographs were referenced generally in the report, in Young v. State, 739 So.2d 553 (Fla.1999), this Court observed that under the rules of discovery there is an obligation upon the defendant to exercise due diligence pretrial to obtain information. However, we have also recognized ... that the focus in postconviction Brady-Bagley analysis is ultimately the nature and weight of undisclosed information. The ultimate test in backward-looking postconviction analysis is whether information which the State possessed and did not reveal to the defendant and which information was thereby unavailable to the defendant for trial, is of such a nature and weight that confidence in the outcome of the trial is undermined to the extent that there is a reasonable probability that had the information been disclosed to the defendant, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Id. at 559 (emphasis supplied). Thus, while the discovery rules impose an obligation upon defendants to obtain exculpatory materials through the exercise of due diligence, the ultimate test in determining if a Brady violation occurred is whether confidence in the outcome of the trial is undermined to the extent that there is a reasonable probability that had the information been disclosed to the defendant, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Id.