86 N.Y.2d 40 (1995)

Defendants have a right to discover written reports or documents concerning scientific tests related to their case, even if those materials are held by third parties like the FBI, and a court’s in camera review finding the material not exculpatory does not negate this right.

Summary

Joseph Dagata was convicted of rape and sodomy. Prior to trial, he requested discovery of all scientific testing reports, including FBI notes related to DNA testing. The FBI had tested samples but reported inconclusive results. Dagata received the report but not the underlying notes. The trial court denied his request for the notes, conducting an in camera review and finding they were not exculpatory. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in denying Dagata access to the FBI notes, emphasizing the defendant’s right to evaluate scientific evidence and the prosecution’s failure to provide a valid reason for withholding the information.

Facts

Dagata was accused of raping and sodomizing the complainant. Blood samples were taken from both Dagata and the complainant and sent to the FBI for DNA testing. The FBI issued a one-page report stating that a DNA profile could not be obtained from vaginal swabs, precluding comparison with Dagata’s sample. Dagata requested the FBI’s laboratory notes related to the analysis but only received the summary report. During trial, the summary report was admitted, but the court restricted questions about Wagner’s analysis of the document.

Procedural History

Dagata was convicted of rape and sodomy. After the verdict, he moved for an order directing the FBI to disclose all records pertaining to the laboratory analysis. The trial court denied the motion but directed the People to request the records from the FBI for an in camera inspection, after which the court determined the notes were not Brady material. Dagata then moved to set aside the verdict, arguing the notes were newly discovered evidence, which was denied. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether FBI notes related to a one-page DNA testing report are within the scope of the discovery rule of CPL 240.20.
2. Whether the prosecution was required to provide these notes upon defendant’s request, notwithstanding that they were not in its possession.
3. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to direct that defendant receive the notes the FBI used in analyzing DNA evidence.

Holding

1. Yes, because CPL 240.20(1)(c) mandates the disclosure of any written report or document concerning a scientific test relating to the criminal action, and the FBI notes fall under this definition.
2. Yes, because CPL 240.20 is a mandatory directive compelling the People to provide requested items, even if held by a third party, especially when the third party requires a court order to release them.
3. Yes, because the defendant has the right to evaluate the scientific evidence and the court’s in camera review does not negate the defendant’s right to access the documents; furthermore, the prosecution provided no valid reason to deny access.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized New York’s broad pretrial disclosure policy, as embodied in CPL article 240. The court stated that CPL 240.20(1)(c) requires the People to produce any written report or document concerning a scientific test. The court found the FBI notes clearly fell within this statute. The court stated that the highly technical nature of DNA evidence requires that it be subject to evaluation and strategy of defendant’s counsel and experts. The Court quoted, “the best judge of the value of evidence to a defendant’s case is ‘the single-minded devotion of counsel for the accused.’” The court held that it was error for the trial court to deny access to the FBI notes to the defendant because CPL 240.20 provides that defendants receive the information whether or not exculpatory in nature. The court ordered the materials to be provided to the defendant and remitted the case to the trial court to consider a motion for a hearing based on the new evidence.