People of Michigan v. Ronald Anthony Dimambro Jr
332319
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 6, 2016Background
- Defendant Ronald DiMambro convicted of crimes related to the fatal injury of a child; trial included autopsy evidence and expert testimony.
- After conviction, defendant moved for a new trial alleging undisclosed autopsy photographs (32 neurological images) withheld in violation of Brady.
- Trial court granted a new trial based on materiality of the withheld photographs.
- Judge Jansen dissents from the majority: would reverse the new-trial order and affirm convictions.
- Two central legal contentions in the dissent: (1) whether a county medical examiner counts as part of the “government” for Brady purposes; (2) whether the 32 photographs were material to the outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held (Dissent) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether medical examiner is part of the “government” for Brady | Prosecutor responsible for evidence known to agents acting on government’s behalf | Medical examiner performs independent statutorily mandated duties and is not under prosecutorial control | Medical examiner not within government for Brady purposes; independent duties to state |
| Whether suppression occurred (evidence within prosecution’s control) | Documents/photos in medical examiner’s possession should be attributable to prosecution | Prosecution could not know of missing materials and did not control medical examiner files | No Brady suppression attributable to prosecution because ME not acting as prosecution agent |
| Materiality of the 32 autopsy photographs | Photos could have supported defense expert and undermined confidence in verdict | Defense had sufficient photos (≈290) and Dr. Cassin’s testimony already encompassed the key points; additional photos not likely to change outcome | Photographs not material; no reasonable probability outcome would differ |
| Reliance on post-trial expert (Dr. Dragovic) to show materiality | Post-trial expert opined photographs showed contusions due to surgery, undermining homicide finding | Post-trial expert was not involved at trial; defense counsel did not state they would have used additional experts; trial evidence already strong | Post-trial expert testimony insufficient to show materiality; cannot rely on an expert not involved at trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose materially exculpatory evidence)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (prosecutor must learn of favorable evidence known to others acting on government’s behalf)
- People v. Chenault, 495 Mich. 142 (2014) (Michigan articulation of Brady test: suppression, favorability, materiality)
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (1999) (county medical examiner’s duties are owed to the state)
- People v. Ginther, 390 Mich. 436 (1973) (standard for remand to examine claim of ineffective assistance / evidentiary hearings)
- People v. Daniels, 311 Mich. App. 257 (2015) (foreign-jurisdiction decisions may be persuasive)