Court Opinion

ID: 9518890
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:04:18.44646+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:37:58.329304
License: Public Domain

Levin, J.,
(concurring). The defendant’s remedy, if he has one, is by motion for a new trial. There has been no showing that the police or prosecutor did in fact interview witnesses who furnished information corroborating the defendant’s evidence or which was otherwise helpful to the defense bearing on the identification or alibi issues that was not disclosed to defendant’s trial counsel. See Jackson v. Wainwright (CA 5, 1968), 390 F2d 288. The prosecutor’s obligation to show the whole transaction, to produce all witnesses, whether the tendency of their evidence is to establish guilt or innocence (Hurd v. People [1872], 25 Mich 405, 416; People v. Blazenzitz [1920], 212 Mich 675, 679) is not limited to witnesses present at the time the crime was committed. People v. Ake (1961), 362 Mich 134; People v. Kayne (1934), 268 Mich 186; People v. Etter (1890), 81 Mich 570; People v. Dickinson (1966), 2 Mich App 646.