Opinion ID: 744671
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: refusal to compel the prosecution to conduct fingerprint

Text: 9 COMPARISONS. 10 A district court's decision as to alleged Brady violations is reviewed de novo. United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774, 777 (9th Cir.1993). The law of the Ninth Circuit is unequivocal on this point: [t]he prosecution is under no obligation to turn over materials not under its control. See United States v. Dominguez-Villa, 954 F.2d 562, 566 (9th Cir.1992)(quoting United States v. Aichele, 941 F.2d 761, 764 (9th Cir.1991)). 11 Here, the one latent fingerprint of value was recovered from the bullet clip of the weapon used in the assault. Old Chief argues that, once it was determined that the latent fingerprint on the bullet clip did not match his known prints, the district court should have compelled the prosecution to conduct fingerprint comparisons of all the witnesses at the scenes of the offenses. Specifically, he contends that if the comparison resulted in a match between the latent print and the prosecution's key witness, that witness's crucial testimony would have been substantially impeached. Old Chief, however, did have access to the results of the fingerprint analysis that was conducted by the prosecution. 12 Consistent with its Brady obligations, the prosecutor turned over the potentially exculpatory results of the fingerprint analysis conducted for Old Chief and his two defense witnesses that claimed to have had contact with the gun on the day of the assault. Old Chief argued this lack of fingerprint evidence in his defense. 13 What Old Chief argues now, in sum, is that the prosecution's failure to obtain its own witness's fingerprints for comparison precluded and impaired his ability to present his defense. Old Chief's request, however, was tantamount to forcing the prosecution to secure evidence, not already in its possession, for use in the impeachment of its own witness. This is not required under Brady or Dominguez-Villa. 14