SER Ralph A. Lorenzetti, Jr. v. Hon. David H. Sanders and Michael W.F.
238 W. Va. 157
| W. Va. | 2016Background
- Defendant Michael W.F. was indicted on sexual-abuse charges after his eight‑year‑old daughter S.F. accused him; trial stayed pending this appeal.
- DHHR maintained multidisciplinary treatment records for S.F.; the county Prosecutor had copies from prior parental‑rights proceedings.
- Defense counsel learned the DHHR records likely contained multiple recantations by S.F. and statements suggesting DHHR personnel may have reinforced or shaped S.F.’s disclosures.
- Defense requested the DHHR files under Brady; Prosecutor resisted, invoking the statutory confidentiality of DHHR child records (W. Va. Code §49‑5‑101) and asked the court to review in camera.
- The circuit court conducted an in camera review, found indicia of exculpatory/impeachment material, and ordered that defense counsel and a retained expert may review the records (but not the defendant, family, or public).
- Prosecutor sought a writ of prohibition from the West Virginia Supreme Court to block enforcement of the circuit court’s order; the Supreme Court denied the writ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Prosecutor) | Defendant's Argument (Michael) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant has a constitutional right to DHHR records under Brady | No — Prosecutor argued the records are confidential and any recantation/impeachment evidence is immaterial or already known | Yes — Defense argued records contain material exculpatory/impeachment evidence (recantations, DHHR bolstering) that must be disclosed | Court: Brady applies; records contain material impeachment/exculpatory evidence and must be disclosed to defense counsel after in camera review |
| Whether statutory confidentiality bars disclosure | Prosecutor: W. Va. Code §49‑5‑101 makes DHHR child records confidential and precludes release | Defendant: Statutory exception permits release by court order when records are relevant and material | Court: Confidentiality is subject to judicial exception (court review for relevancy/materiality/safety); circuit court properly used that exception |
| Proper procedure for handling confidential child records | Prosecutor: contended circuit court exceeded authority or should have limited access differently | Defendant: Requested in camera review and supervised inspection by defense counsel/expert | Court: Circuit court followed proper procedure—conducted in camera review, balanced interests, limited access to counsel and expert to protect child |
| Ethical concerns from Prosecutor’s prior representation of DHHR | Prosecutor claimed attorney‑client relationship with DHHR prevents disclosure | Defendant: Brady and court order require disclosure despite that relationship | Court: Professional‑responsibility rules permit disclosure when necessary to comply with law or court order; ethical concern does not prevent disclosure |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose evidence favorable to accused)
- State v. Youngblood, 221 W.Va. 20 (W. Va. 2007) (articulates three Brady components: favorable, suppressed, material)
- Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987) (in camera review of child‑welfare records balances defendant’s rights and child privacy)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (impeachment evidence falls within Brady)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (impeachment evidence material to witness credibility)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (prosecutor’s duty to disclose evidence material to guilt/innocence)
- State v. Roy, 194 W.Va. 276 (W. Va. 1995) (defendant bears burden to show relevancy and need before in camera inspection)