Preview:

02/06/2010 "See News Release 012 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA 10-KK-292 STATE OF LOUISIANA vs. MICHAEL ANDERSON ON APPLICATION WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL
Johnson, J. would grant the writ application for the following reasons: Given the serious nature of both the alleged misconduct of the State and the gravity of the sentence imposed, I would grant the defendant's writ application, and order the trial court to conduct an in camera inspection of the District Attorney's file to determine whether it contains additional undisclosed Brady1 material. Clearly, there is no "work product" exception for Brady material in either federal or state law. The accused has a constitutional right to exculpatory material that supersedes state legislative statutory privilege. Considering the recently disclosed evidence of the sole eyewitness' visual impairments, I would grant a stay to allow the defendant his right to compulsory process in order to develop his claims in support of his motion for New Trial. Where a "witness may labor under a deficiency," the

defense should be afforded some latitude" in exploring the deficiency in order to satisfy the Sixth Amendment.2

1

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) State v. Robinson, 817 So.2d 1131, 1137 (La. 2002).

2



Download JOHNSON, J., would grant the stay and writ, and assigns reasons..pdf

Louisiana Law