Court Opinion

ID: 9457094
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:12:29.622229+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:13.201702
License: Public Domain

BAZELON, Chief Judge
(concurring) :
I concur in the Court’s analysis of the issues in this case. Though the question of prejudicial error is very close for me, I agree that this conviction must be affirmed.
I would like to add, however, that I do think that Marsha Skeens’ statement was sufficiently “favorable” to appellant *669so that its disclosure was required under the doctrines of Brady and Dennis. Granted that the statement may have been useful only to inform counsel that Marsha Skeens might be a critical witness, this is precisely the kind of lead which, in another case, might have had major consequences for counsel’s trial strategy. Defense counsel are not blessed with an infinite amount of time in preparing criminal cases; therefore, leads from the grand jury minutes may often be of critical importance. We have held in Allen v. United States, 129 U.S.App.D.C. 61, 390 F.2d 476 (1968), that there must be clear and compelling considerations for denying to the defense access to the minutes — considerations bearing primarily upon whether there is any real need for secrecy. I agree with Judge Fahy, dissenting in Young v. United States, 132 U.S.App.D.C. 142, 406 F.2d 960 (1968), that the rule should not be restricted to witnesses who testify at the trial.
I think this case indicates again the hazards of relying on the prosecutor and the trial judge to look after the defendant’s interests.