Opinion ID: 475335
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Federal Hearings

Text: 74 At the federal hearings several members of the defense team testified on the subject of oral requests. Trial counsel Burger stated that in early 1981 he had asked for exculpatory material generally and was shown a thin file which did not contain any such material. See rec., vol. VII, fed. habeas, at 15, 79-81. Co-counsel Frank Wright testified that in early 1981 he had made a direct oral inquiry of the district attorney regarding the existence of other suspects and was told that there were none. See rec., vol. VI, fed. habeas, at 114-16, 125, 132, 151-52; see also id. at 78-79 (testimony of Mike Evett); id. at 159 (testimony of Clifford Henry Bowen). 75 In the closing arguments, the following colloquy took place between Judge Brett and Jack Zimmermann, Bowen's lawyer on appeal: 76 THE COURT: Of course, we've also got a problem in this case that is somewhat troublesome to me. I take it the record shows clearly that, first, there was no discovery motion, particularly Brady motion, prior to trial, right? 77 MR. ZIMMERMANN: There was no written motion prior to trial. That's what the record shows, yes, Your Honor. 78 THE COURT: Does our record show that--at least, there is no dispute in the record that I've heard here, and from what [District Attorney] Macy said I take it he doesn't dispute it--that most probably sometime either in January of '81 or early February of '81 Mr. Macy, probably in the presence of one of his assistants where Mr. Frank Wright was present and probably also Mr. Burger was present, there was an oral request for information concerning any other suspects. Is this record clear here that that oral request was made and there is no dispute about that? 79 MR. ZIMMERMANN: Yes, sir. If I may, here is what I believe there is no dispute about. 80 THE COURT: All right. 81 MR. ZIMMERMANN: There is no dispute there was any written Brady motion. There is no dispute--written by either Frank Wright or Raymond Burger. There is no dispute that there was only one specific request made orally, and that was for a list of suspects. There was no specific request for any other information, and we acknowledge that, we concede that. 82 But the evidence is clear from the second motion for a new trial that Frank Wright specifically asked Bob Macy--Bob Macy had the opportunity to cross-examine and his only cross-examination question was to inquire as to the date that that meeting occurred. I think Mr. Macy also acknowledged today that there was a request for suspects. Mr. Burger's uncontested testimony here, sponsored by the State, was that there was a specific request for suspects. 83 THE COURT: All right. Well, I take it in your mind ... a request for other suspects, if made by Mr. Bowen's counsel, would in effect be a request for other suspects other than my client. 84 MR. ZIMMERMANN: Yes, Your Honor, and I think it was clear it was in that context. 85 Rec., vol. IX, fed. habeas, at 22-24. Robert Nance, representing the State, voiced no objections to these assertions by defense counsel and the court. During his closing argument Nance and the court had the following exchange: 86 THE COURT: Mr. Nance, do you agree that the state of our record here is essentially that an oral request was made by Mr. Frank Wright and/or Mr. Raymond Burger before Mr. Macy and/or one of his prosecutors on the prosecution team in the January, 1981 or early February '81 time frame for a list of all other suspects or all suspects? Does our record reflect that? 87 MR. NANCE: Our record reflects and my notes--well, I don't recall exactly what I wrote, but yes, Mr. Wright asked the question. Mr. Macy, as I recall, didn't remember it. 88 THE COURT: Well, my recollection is Mr. Wright stated it emphatically occurred. Mr. Burger stated it emphatically occurred. Both of them stated that the prosecutor replied there are no other suspects other than Clifford Henry Bowen. And Mr. Macy today said, 'I don't recall the conversation, but if they say it took place I assume it did.' 89 MR. NANCE: I think that's correct. 90 THE COURT. So, is the state of our record here that that's undisputed? 91 MR. NANCE: I'd say so in this proceeding. 92 Id. at 45-46 (emphasis added). Later in his argument Nance appeared to contradict these concessions when he stated that [o]ur view is and continues to be at this point that there was no request. Id. at 51. 93 From a review of the cold record, we can ascribe no other meaning to these statements than a concession, as Judge Brett found. The proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law which the State submitted to the federal court confirm that it did not dispute the existence of an oral request but argued instead that the request was legally insufficient: 94 [T]he Court doubts that a casual question, sometime early in 1981, was sufficient to alert the prosecution that defense counsel wanted exculpatory material under Brady. It appears from the testimony that a casual question was asked and honestly answered. Mr. Wright evidently did not make any follow-up in order to clarify that his request was for exculpatory evidence within the meaning of Brady. At the evidentiary hearing conducted in the present case, Mr. Macy did not even recall the question being asked. If the desired information regarding other suspects was important enough to the defense to matter in trial, it is not unreasonable to require the defense to file a written motion for exculpatory evidence under Brady.... The Court believes that a casual question, whether asked in the office, in the hallway, or outside the courtroom, does rise [sic] to the dignity of a request under Brady unless it firmly and unquestionably puts the prosecution on notice that the defense is inquiring about the exculpatory evidence. 95 Mr. Wright's question fell far short of this standard. He did not ask regarding rejected investigative leads or other persons who were suspects at other times. He only asked if there were someone else who might have committed the crime. For reasons more fully set out below, the Lee Crowe material did not fit within that question. Therefore, there was no improper failure to disclose exculpatory evidence. 96 The Court is reluctant to overturn a final criminal conviction, for the most serious of crimes, on collateral attack based upon a dimly remembered question asked years before.... The Court notes that both Judge Naifeh and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals considered this alleged oral request to be insufficient under Brady.... The Court concludes that overturning this conviction based upon a single oral question, never followed by formal motion, would unduly interfere with the finality of legitimate state criminal judgments.... The Court simply does not believe that the question asked by Mr. Wright rose to the dignity of any request whatsoever under Brady v. Maryland, supra, and refuses to treat it as such. 97 Rec., vol. I, fed. habeas, doc. no. 35, at 34-36 (excerpt from State's proposed conclusions of law) (emphasis added). 98 The State now attempts to elude the finding of a concession. It first contends that its persistent avowed reliance on the state court findings is inconsistent with a concession that those findings are wrong. This argument not only assumes that the state court findings are complete and unambiguous but also fails to explain how a concession would not undermine those findings. Second, the State argues that Macy's lack of recollection precluded it from unequivocally asserting that no request had been made and that its silence on the issue does not constitute an affirmative concession. Unfortunately for the State, we cannot require the district courts to observe such semantic niceties. For the reasons set out below, we conclude that the finding of an oral request for other suspects is supported by both the federal and state court records and is not clearly erroneous. See rec., vol. III, 1st motion trans., at 905, 973; id. vol. II, 2d motion trans., at 12-13. It remains to be determined, however, what effect the presumption of correctness accorded state court findings by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254(d) has on the district court's finding that the State conceded an oral request was made. 99