In a criminal case...does the prosecution have a duty to disclose
exculpatory evidence in the possession of the police of a different
county within the same state?  For the price, a simple yes or no plus
some case citations would be ok.

---

Request for Question Clarification by cynthia-ga on 19 Jun 2005 03:44 PDT

Here's the Answer in California:

A CALIFORNIA APPELLATE COURT FINALLY ADDRESSES THE DISTINCTIONS
BETWEEN BRADY VIOLATIONS AND PITCHESS DISCOVERY
(middle of the 8th paragraph)
http://www.jones-mayer.com/caseupdates/GPPPitchess/vol3no2.html
..."Put still another way, in People v. Superior Court (Barrett)
(2000) 80 Cal. App. 4th 1305, a prosecutor's duty under Brady to
disclose material, exculpatory evidence extends to evidence the
prosecutor ? or the prosecution team ? knowingly possesses or has the
right to possess. The prosecution team includes both investigative and
prosecutorial agencies and personnel. "A prosecutor has a duty to
search for and disclose exculpatory evidence if the evidence is
possessed by a person or agency that has been used by the prosecutor
or the investigating agency to assist the prosecution or the
investigating agency in its work. The important determinant is whether
the person or agency has been acting on the government's behalf."

 A prosecutor does not have a duty to disclose exculpatory evidence or
information to a defendant unless the prosecution team actually or
constructively possesses that evidence or information. The court held
that information possessed by an agency that has no connection to the
investigation or prosecution of the criminal charge against the
defendant is not possessed by the prosecution team, and the prosecutor
does not have the duty to search for or to disclose such material..."

What state?  If I got lucky and you're in California, let me know and
I'll post in the Answer Box.

~~Cynthia

---

Clarification of Question by pdaug1pg-ga on 19 Jun 2005 07:38 PDT

Thanks for the info...I am in Wisconsin, though I wish I were in
California!  Any clue as to the law in WI?

---

Request for Question Clarification by cynthia-ga on 19 Jun 2005 15:19 PDT

Although this does not specifically address evidence held/possessed by
agencies outside the primary jurisction that the proseqution becomes
aware of, a couple inferewnces can be made from this:

COURT OF APPEALS - DECISION - DATED AND FILED 
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wi&vol=wisctapp2%5C4q99%5C98-2885&invol=1
..."    ¶19. In support, the State cites to State v. Armstrong , 110
Wis.2d 555, 329 N.W.2d 386 (1983). There, Armstrong contended that the
State had breached its duty to disclose exculpatory evidence by
failing to provide the defense with an accurate copy of a parking
ticket that had been issued to him. See id . at 579, 329 N.W.2d at
398. The supreme court disagreed, ruling that the evidence was not
within the exclusive possession of the State because "[t]he defendant
knew he had been ticketed. He paid the ticket by check and the
canceled check was returned to him." Id.  at 580, 329 N.W.2d at 398.
..."

Here's one more:

[in a case summary] Particular Issues -- Exculpatory Evidence --
Disclosure During Trial
Reynold C. Moore v. Casperson, 345 F.3d 474 (7th Cir. 2003)
For Moore: James Rebholz
Issue/Holding:
http://www.wisspd.org/html/980case/casesum/habeas.htm#IIBAA
    ..."Here, even assuming the material qualifies as being
?favorable,? it appears that Mr. Moore?s counsel was able to use the
prior inconsistent statements and perform an effective
cross-examination of Jones. Although the prosecution ?delayed? giving
the information to Mr. Moore, ?defense counsel was able to make good
use of the impeaching evidence in his vigorous cross-examination of
the prosecution witness? and thus ?the defendant?s due process rights
were not violated? because there ?is nothing in Brady . . . to require
that such disclosures be made before trial.? Allain, 671 F.2d at 255.
..."

I'm still poking around.

~~Cynthia

---

Request for Question Clarification by cynthia-ga on 19 Jun 2005 15:38 PDT

Start reading here:
54 CARDOZO PUB. LAW, POLICY & ETHICS J. [Vol. 1:35
http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/cplpej/CAP103.pdf
Page 20 of 26 pages in the pdf document.

---

Clarification of Question by pdaug1pg-ga on 25 Jun 2005 11:46 PDT

The cardozo article was helpful...thanks for still looking for more.