331 Conn. 628
Conn.2019Background
- Defendant Michael Guerrera and four codefendants were charged in a murder/assault case; while jailed, the Department of Correction (DOC) automatically recorded inmates' phone calls and noncontact visits.
- At the state's request, DOC reviewed about 10% of those recordings (calls it judged potentially relevant) and summarized a few for the prosecutor; the state never sought copies or further review.
- Defense subpoenaed DOC for ~1,552 additional recordings that DOC had preserved only after the subpoena (they had not been reviewed by DOC or the state).
- Trial court ordered DOC to produce only recordings actually reviewed by DOC for the prosecution; it quashed the subpoena for the unreviewed 1,552 calls as overbroad and a fishing expedition.
- Appellate Court affirmed; the Connecticut Supreme Court granted certification limited to an issue but ultimately held the unreviewed calls were not part of the state’s investigatory file and affirmed the denial of wholesale production.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Guerrera) | Defendant's Argument (State/DOC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOC-recorded calls locked but not reviewed are part of the state's investigatory file for Brady purposes | The 1,552 locked calls were preserved in furtherance of the state’s monitoring request and thus belong to the state’s investigatory file; state should be deemed to have constructive knowledge | The calls were locked only in response to the defense subpoena and were not reviewed by DOC or the state; thus not part of the state's investigatory file | Held: The unreviewed 1,552 calls were not part of the state's investigatory file because DOC acted as the state’s agent only with respect to the ~10% of calls it actually reviewed. |
| Whether Brady requires the state to review and produce voluminous, unreviewed DOC recordings absent a specific showing of likely exculpatory content | Defense argued Brady requires review/production of the preserved recordings | State argued producing them would be unduly burdensome and defense made no threshold showing of exculpatory material | Held: Brady did not require the state to review or produce the unreviewed 1,552 recordings absent a threshold showing suggesting they contain favorable, material evidence. |
| Whether defendant may compel an in-camera or unsupervised search of government files under Brady without a particularized showing | Defense sought broad access (effectively an unsupervised search) of DOC files | State argued Brady does not permit fishing expeditions; defendant must make a specific showing of materiality | Held: Court reiterated that unfocused searches are not permitted; defendant must present at least some non-speculative basis to justify compelled review. |
| Whether burden of review excuses Brady obligations when file is part of prosecution’s investigation | (Implicit) Defense: volume should not dilute Brady duty | State: burden relevant when materials are not part of its investigatory file and review would be onerous | Held: Burden on state does not diminish Brady obligations when materials are part of the investigatory file; but here the unreviewed calls were not in that file so no Brady duty arose to perform an extensive search. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose favorable material evidence)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (prosecutor must learn of favorable evidence known to others acting on government’s behalf)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (Brady requires disclosure of favorable material known to government agents)
- Demers v. State, 209 Conn. 143 (1988) (state’s duty extends to investigative agencies acting on its behalf)
- Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987) (defendant may not conduct unsupervised search of government files; must show basis for in-camera review)
- United States v. Brooks, 966 F.2d 1500 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (limited circumstances can require government to examine related files when easy to do and nontrivial prospect of material exculpatory evidence)
- United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 2006) (Arm-of-prosecution inquiry focuses on what the person/entity did, not who they are)
- State v. Colon, 272 Conn. 106 (2004) (distinguishes claim for withheld exculpatory evidence from generalized right to sift through prosecutor files)