Opinion ID: 1349797
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Improper withholding of evidence

Text: Petitioner asserts the prosecution, at both the original trial and at the first evidentiary hearing, improperly withheld material evidence in its possession tending to discredit Oglesby's veracity. ( Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 [10 L.Ed.2d 215, 83 S.Ct. 1194]; People v. Ruthford (1975) 14 Cal.3d 399, 406 [121 Cal. Rptr. 261, 534 P.2d 1341, A.L.R.4th 3132] [the People have a due process duty even in the absence of a request therefor, to disclose all substantial material evidence favorable to an accused, whether such evidence relates directly to the question of guilt ... or to the credibility of a material witness], italics omitted.) Specifically, he asserts the prosecution failed to disclose to him (i) the 1978 tape recording of a conversation between Oglesby and Leslie White (described ante, pp. 585-586); (ii) the 1979 tape recording of an interview of Leslie White by internal affairs investigators of the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office (described ante, pp. 585-586); and (iii) a 1988 district attorney's office internal memorandum. [22] We declined to issue an order to show cause on this claim. As to the latter item, there was no Brady violation because the document did not exist at the time of trial or the first evidentiary hearing. More important, as to all of the items, we concluded that assuming there was a Brady violation, it was harmless. ( United States v. Bagley (1985) 473 U.S. 667 [87 L.Ed.2d 481, 105 S.Ct. 3375].) Under Bagley, supra, a Brady violation requires reversal only if the withheld evidence is material. The evidence is material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A `reasonable probability' is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. ( United States v. Bagley, supra, 473 U.S. at p. 682 [87 L.Ed.2d at p. 494].) We declined to issue an order to show cause on the Brady claim because we were convinced that the challenged evidence (which would have been used primarily to impeach Oglesby) was immaterial under Bagley, supra : It is not reasonably probable that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the trial would have been different. [23] For those same reasons, we conclude that petitioner's Brady claim does not warrant relief on habeas corpus.