New York Law Review

Tag: criminal discovery

  • People v. Dagata, 86 N.Y.2d 40 (1995): Defendant’s Right to Discover Scientific Testing Data

    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.

  • People v. White, 40 N.Y.2d 797 (1976): Defendant’s Right to Independent Testing of Alleged Dangerous Drugs

    People v. White, 40 N.Y.2d 797 (1976)

    A defendant charged with a drug offense is generally entitled to pretrial discovery to conduct independent tests on the alleged contraband, subject to court supervision and safeguards.

    Summary

    White was convicted of criminal possession of a dangerous drug. Prior to trial, he requested permission to conduct his own tests on the substance, but the motion was denied. At trial, he was limited in his ability to cross-examine the prosecution’s chemist about the reliability of their tests. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the defendant should have been granted the opportunity for independent testing, provided that the defendant can show that the discovery is material to the defense and the request is reasonable. Such testing should be conducted under court supervision with appropriate safeguards.

    Facts

    Police found contraband in White’s apartment. The New York State Police chemist performed microscopic and chemical tests on the substance.

    White moved for a pretrial order allowing him to conduct his own scientific tests on the alleged dangerous drug, which motion was denied without explanation.

    During cross-examination of the People’s chemist at trial, White was hampered by his inability to refer to the results of any comparative testing.

    Procedural History

    The trial court convicted White of criminal possession of a dangerous drug in the fourth degree.

    White appealed, arguing that the denial of his pretrial motion for independent testing was erroneous.

    The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.

    The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order, vacated the conviction, and remanded the case for a new trial.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a defendant charged with a dangerous drug offense is entitled to pretrial discovery to conduct independent tests on the alleged dangerous drug.

    Holding

    Yes, because a defendant’s guilt or innocence may hinge exclusively on the nature and amount of the substance in question, making independent testing essential for refuting the charges.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that defendants in narcotics cases should generally be permitted to have their own experts perform tests on the alleged narcotic. The court noted the prevalence of this practice in federal courts under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, as well as in other state courts. The court stated that the denial of the motion was erroneous because “Defendant’s guilt or innocence hung exclusively on the nature and amount of the substance in question; he advanced no other theory of defense. For refutation of the charge against him there was no acceptable alternative to scientific testing by experts of his choice.”

    The court emphasized that the trial court has discretion in granting pretrial discovery under CPL 240.20, subd. 3, but that discretion should normally be exercised in favor of granting the request assuming that the defendant can show that discovery is material to the preparation of his defense and the request is reasonable. If there are concerns about alteration of the substance, the defendant should be afforded the opportunity to conduct testing after the drug has been introduced at trial.

    The court specified that “Any pretrial discovery and testing should, of course, be conducted under the supervision of the court and with safeguards, analogous to those observed by the prosecution in its own testing, to protect against contamination or destruction of the evidence. The particular safeguards must necessarily be designed on an ad hoc basis in the light of the nature, form, quantity and other characteristics of the substance in question and with recognition of other material circumstances of the individual case.”

    The court also addressed White’s contention that there was a fatal deficiency of proof regarding the chain of custody. The court found that weaknesses in the chain of custody affected the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility, and did not create reasonable doubt as to defendant’s guilt.