View Single Post
Old 13th August 2018, 06:37 AM   #177
byn63
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 895
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
That's a lie. Check your facts.
No it is not a lie - the FACTS HAVE BEEN CHECKED - SEE BELOW - NO SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE NO BRADY VIOLATIONS

United States v. MacDonald, 778 F. Supp. 1342 (E.D.N.C. 1991)
US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina - 778 F. Supp. 1342 (E.D.N.C. 1991)
July 8, 1991
778 F. Supp. 1342 (1991)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
Jeffrey R. MacDONALD, Defendant.
Nos. 75-26-CR-3, 90-104-CIV-3-D.
United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Fayetteville Division.

July 8, 1991.

Regarding the first element of a claim under Brady, MacDonald has not shown that the government suppressed any evidence to which he was entitled. While MacDonald was not given access to the handwritten lab notes describing the fiber evidence, the government complied with its duty under Brady by allowing MacDonald to examine and test any of the actual physical evidence, including the fibers at issue here. See, e.g., United States v. Wolf, 839 F.2d at 1391 ("If the means of obtaining the exculpatory evidence has been provided to the defense, however, a Brady claim fails, even if the prosecution does not physically deliver the evidence requested."); United States v. Page, 828 F.2d at 1479 ("[A] new trial is not warranted by evidence which, with reasonable diligence, could have been discovered and produced at trial."); United States v. Gaggi, 811 F.2d 47, 59 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 929, 107 S. Ct. 3214, 96 L. Ed. 2d 701 (1987) ("no Brady violation occurs if the defendant ... should have known the essential facts permitting him to take advantage of any exculpatory evidence"); United States v. Ramirez, 810 F.2d 1338, 1343 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 844, 108 S. Ct. 136, 98 L. Ed. 2d 93 (1987) ("a Brady violation does not arise if, with reasonable diligence, [defendant] could have obtained the information"); United States v. Griggs, 713 F.2d 672, 674 (11th Cir.1983) ("Where defendants ... had within their knowledge the information by which they could have ascertained the alleged Brady material, there is no suppression by the government.").

Here, it is undisputed that MacDonald was given unfettered access to the physical evidence. Pursuant to a June 19, 1979 order of this court, all of the government's physical evidence was made available to Dr. John Thornton, a forensic expert retained by MacDonald. Thornton made no *1354 effort to examine the hair and fiber evidence currently at issue, choosing instead to concentrate on MacDonald's pajama top, the sheets from the master bedroom, floor boards containing a bloody footprint, and cuttings from the surgical rubber glove fragments. Affidavit of Murtagh at 25. MacDonald now argues that Thornton would have had no reason to look at the fiber evidence since its significance was hidden by the suppression of the lab notes and the fact that the box containing the blond synthetic fibers from the clear-handled hairbrush was labeled "black, black & grey [illegible] synthetic hairs." However, the fact remains that Thornton, for whatever reason, chose not to examine any of the fiber evidence, despite being given an opportunity to do so.

Further, suppression of evidence under Brady can only occur with "information which had been known to the prosecution but unknown to the defense." Agurs, 427 U.S. at 103, 96 S. Ct. at 2397. Here, MacDonald has presented no evidence that the prosecuting attorneys had read the lab notes currently at issue and there is no reason to suspect that they were aware of any potential exculpatory material in the notes. Prosecutor Brian M. Murtagh, in fact, states affirmatively that he never read the lab notes pertaining to fiber analysis prior to trial and would have had no reason to have done so. See Affidavit of Murtagh at 7, 14. In a case such as this one, where the allegedly suppressed evidence was discussed only in a few isolated notations buried in hundreds of pages of handwritten lab notes, Brady does not require the prosecution "to peruse through all of its evidence with an eye to the defendant's theory of the case and then to specify to the defendant the evidence which supports that theory." United States v. Davis, 673 F. Supp. 252, 256 (N.D.Ill.1987) (emphasis omitted).

Regarding the second element of a claim under Brady, while the court is willing to accept MacDonald's assertion that the handwritten lab notes were exculpatory, there is some doubt as to whether the allegedly suppressed evidence would have actually aided the defense had the notes been available at trial. Without any evidence that saran is used in the production of human wig hair, the presence of blond saran fibers in a hairbrush in the MacDonald home would have done little to corroborate MacDonald's account of an intruder with blond hair or a blond wig. Moreover, Stoeckley testified at trial that she was not wearing her wig on the night of the murders, although she apparently told Jane Zillioux, a neighbor in Nashville, Tennessee, that she was worried about her wig getting wet from the rain. Similarly, the other allegedly suppressed fiber evidence would have been of rather limited exclamatory value given that the unmatched fibers were not found in sufficient quantity particularly in comparison to the large numbers of fibers from MacDonald's pajama top to suggest a life and death struggle with four intruders
.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Brady violations were deliberately made by the forensic labs
No that is not only a LIE but IMPOSSIBLE. The labs do not have any part in providing discovery information. HOWEVER, the labs provided the information to the prosecution, and the prosecution provided the information to inmate.

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and prosecutors
There were no Brady Violations found. PERIOD. Check your FACTS.


Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
and Judge Dupree
the Judge does not have anything to do with providing the Brady Material to the defense. CHECK YOUR FACTS

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
so that the jury would never be informed,
The prosecution only presented about 60% of the available evidence at trial. there is no requirement to present ALL the evidence. As for the dark wool fibers that you keep bringing up - the were unsourced thus they were forensically useless. The saran fibers were sourced to one of Colette's hair pieces and to dolls. The saran were from different sources so no one wig would have provided them AND they were found in a hair brush. Do you honestly believe that someone doing evil would stop and brush their wig with a hairbrush belonging in the home? That is ridiculous! Still, it is of no import because it has been PROVEN that saran WAS NOT used to make cosmetic wigs in the 1960s-1970s time frame. YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD THIS NUMEROUS TIMES.

The prosecution DOES NOT HAVE A REQUIREMENT TO POINT OUT ANY EVIDENCE TO THE DEFENSE. They simply provide the information and the DEFENSE is supposed to review the evidence. So it is Bernie Segal that failed to mention the dark wool fibers and the saran so that the jury was "uninformed". Of course, he probably didn't mention them because they were not as "exculpatory" as the defense tries to claim these days.
byn63 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top