State v. James, 292 Ga. 440

State timely appealed trial court’s grant of new trials to James and Lawson following de novo review.
James and Lawson were convicted of malice murder in Fulton County in 2008; co-defendant trials and dispositions included one acquittal and one guilty plea to lesser offense.
Trial court granted new trials in Sept. 2011 based on missing second page of the medical examiner’s three-page investigative summary; the missing page allegedly affected time-of-death framing.
The missing page described victims’ condition and time-related context; trial court labeled it a “critical piece” and framed the issue as a Brady violation due to non-disclosure.
Appellees’ Brady claim rested on four-factor test: favorable evidence, lack of access, suppression, and reasonable probability of different outcome; State argued no suppression since defense had or could obtain the page with reasonable diligence.
Instant decision reinstates convictions and remands for remaining grounds, reversing the trial court’s new-trial grant.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Brady suppression on missing page	State alleges missing page was favorable evidence and suppressed	James/Lawson contend no suppression; they had ability to obtain page	No Brady suppression; defense could obtain page with diligence; no suppression found
Diligence and suppression factors	State argues four Brady factors met, including favorable evidence and suppression	James/Lawson show page could be obtained with reasonable diligence	Factors not satisfied; co-defendant obtained missing page, defeating suppression claim
Standard of review for new-trial grant on special ground	State maintains de novo review appropriate for special-ground ruling	James/Lawson contend trial court erred in granting new trials	De novo review applicable; court reverses trial court’s grant on special ground

Schofield v. Palmer, 279 Ga. 848 (2005) (Brady materials and suppression standard; four-factor test)
Head v. Stripling, 277 Ga. 403 (2003) (prosecution team knowledge and duty to learn favorable evidence)
United States v. Senn, 129 F.3d 886 (7th Cir. 1997) (evidence not suppressed if defendant could obtain by reasonable diligence)
Pelullo v. United States, 399 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2005) (Brady evidence becomes non-suppressible if co-defendant obtained page)
O’Neal v. State, 285 Ga. 361 (2009) (de novo review for special-ground new trials)
State v. Kelly, 290 Ga. 29 (2011) (clarifies de novo standard for special-ground rulings)
State v. Clements, 289 Ga. 640 (2011) (affirms de novo review context for new-trial orders)