ABSTRACT
Our forty-four-page brief submitted to the court on February 20, 2009, documented abundant legal precedence to demonstrate what we believed were the errors in the trial court’s opinion. The failure to turn over evidence to the defense that could discredit the caliber of an investigation has been deemed a Brady violation in other cases. In 2006, an Ohio federal district court ruled in D’Ambrosio v. Bagley that “opinions and conclusions of original officers who investigate the case, which contradicted the theory of State presented at trial, would have been admissible at trial and State’s failure to disclose them constituted reversible Brady violation.” 1
Could there be a more similar case? The state’s arguments suggesting that the missing files on the original
investigation of Gillispie were known or could have been known by the defense at the time of the trial were discredited by the sworn affidavit of Detective Fritz. Defense attorney Dennis Lieberman could never have discovered these original records because, we argued, Detective Moore lied to him personally and again under oath at trial when he claimed that he, Detective Moore, not the original detectives on the case, had initiated the investigation of Gillispie.
