Pursuant to Brady v. Maryland and its progeny, the defence respectfully submits that the requested incident reports pertaining to all parties present at the scene constitute material exculpatory evidence essential to Mr. Porkins' defence. These reports are intrinsically relevant to the same alleged criminal incident and may contain exculpatory information vital to the defendant's case.
The prosecution's obligation to disclose such evidence is not discretionary but mandatory when the evidence is material to either guilt or punishment. The defence contends that withholding these reports would constitute a clear Brady violation, as they may contain exculpatory or impeachment evidence that could significantly alter the trier of fact's assessment of the case.
It is well-established in jurisprudence that criminal incident reports involving all parties present at a shared scene are routinely disclosed during discovery. Defence counsel can cite numerous precedential instances where such comprehensive disclosure has occurred as standard practice. The determination of whether such evidence is pertinent to the defence is not within the District Attorney's Office's unilateral discretion, but rather is governed by constitutional standards of due process.
The defence maintains that these reports may provide critical context, alternative perspectives, or contradictory accounts that could substantially illuminate the circumstances surrounding the alleged offense. The constitutional right to a fair trial necessitates access to all potentially exculpatory evidence, regardless of the prosecution's assessment of its utility to the defence.
Therefore, the defence respectfully requests the immediate production of all incident reports related to this matter in accordance with the prosecution's affirmative constitutional obligations.
we will give the time you need but we felt it was important to reply to your previous comments Morgan Luna-Schofield