Judge: City Doesn't Have To Hand Over Cop's Statements in Murder Case

DOCUMENT 37
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
10/3/2018 5:10 PM
47-CC-2018-003238.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MADISON COUNTY, ALABAMA
DEBRA KIZER, CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MADISON COUNTY, ALABAMA
STATE OF ALABAMA )
)
V. ) Case No.: CC-2018-003238.00
)
DARBY WILLIAM )
Defendant. )
ORDER
This case came on for hearing on September 28, 2018 for consideration of pending
motions. All parties were present through counsel. Counsel for the City of Huntsville
was also present.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The State of Alabama issued a subpoena duces tecum to the City of Huntsville
requesting production of the following:
"Two sealed sets of complete records (including but not limited to audio and/or video
recordings, transcripts, statements, evidence, results and findings) of the Incident
Review Board convened to evaluate the officer-involved shooting that occurred on April
3, 2018."
The requested records include a statement or statements made by defendant William

Darby, as well as statements by other witnesses.
The State of Alabama filed a motion to compel compliance with the subpoena on
September 10, 2018. The City of Huntsville filed its motion to quash the subpoena on
September 24, 2018.
The Court will first address the requested information that is not a direct statement or
evidence regarding Darby which would have protection under the Fifth Amendment
right against compulsory self-incrimination and will then address Darby's statement.
REQUESTED INFORMATION NOT RELATED TO DEFENDANT WILLIAM DARBY
In both the motion to quash and at hearing, the City of Huntsville challenged only
production of the statement or statements given by defendant William Darby. No
challenge was made to production of any other items requested in the subpoena.
Nevertheless, to require the City of Huntsville to produce the requested records prior to
trial, the State of Alabama must show the following:
DOCUMENT 37
(1) that the requested documents are evidentiary and relevant;

(2) that they are not otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial by exercise of
due diligence;
(3) that the party cannot properly prepare for trial without such production and
inspection in advance of trial and that the failure to obtain such inspection may tend
unreasonably to delay the trial; and
(4) that the application is made in good faith and is not intended as a general "fishing
expedition."
See In Re State of Alabama v. Reynolds, 819 So.2d 72 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999) (quoting
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 94 S.Ct. 2090 (1974).
Upon consideration of the arguments at hearing and applicable law, the Court finds that
the State of Alabama has established each of the foregoing requirements.
STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT, WILLIAM DARBY
All parties agree that the Garrity decision addressed in both pending motions and at
hearing clearly protects defendant's statement from use by the State of Alabama unless
he testifies at trial. Nevertheless, the State of Alabama argues that because
defendant's statement may be considered exculpatory, it is obligated under Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, (1963) to provide it to defendant - and is thus
entitled to receive and review it - prior to trial. While counsel for the City of Huntsville
and defendant concede that counsel for the State of Alabama must be provided
defendant's statement IF he testifies at trial, they contend that allowing the State
access to the statement prior to trial would amount to "use" of the statement prohibited
by Garrity and the cases decided thereafter.
Upon consideration of numerous Alabama appellate decisions, the Court concludes

that Brady imposes no obligation on the State of Alabama to provide defendant a copy
of his statement. The reasoning of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals in Carr v.
State, 505 So.2d 1294 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987) is applicable herein:
We must now determine if the non-disclosure of the statement

made . . . [by defendant] constituted a suppression of evidence sufficient
to cause a Brady violation. The term suppression means "non-disclosure
of evidence that the prosecutor, and not the defense attorney, knew to be
in existence." Ogden v. Wolff, 522 F.2d 816, 820 (8th Cir. 1975).
"Evidence is not "suppressed" if the defendant either knew . . . or should
have known . . . of the essential facts permitting him to take advantage of
any exculpatory evidence." United States v. LeRoy, 687 F.2d 610, 618 (2d
Cir. 1982). There can be no suppression by the State of evidence already
known by and available to the defendant prior to trial. DeBerry v. Wolff,
513 F.2d 1336, 1340 (8th Cir. 1975). The statement [defendant] contends
was suppressed in this case was his own, and no reason was set forth to
DOCUMENT 37
explain why he should not have been aware of it. Pursuant to the above
authority, no suppression, and consequently no Brady violation, could
occur here, as appellant had knowledge of the statement allegedly
suppressed.
Carr at 1297; see also Flowers v. State, So.2d 938 (Ala. 2005); Freeman v. State 722
So.2d 806, (Ala. Crim. App. 1998)
CONCLUSION
Pursuant to Rule 17.3(b) of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure, the City of
Huntsville is DIRECTED to produce to the Court all items requested by the subpoena
duces tecum at issue except for statements in any form made by William Darby. Said
production must be made by November 1, 2018. The Court will thereafter permit all
parties and counsel to inspect, prior to trial, all items produced. The City of Huntsville
is ordered to maintain statements of defendant, William Darby, in any form, and shall
produce them if further ordered by the Court during trial.
DONE this 28th day of September, 2018.
/s/ DONNA S. PATE

CIRCUIT JUDGE

Judge: City Doesn't Have To Hand Over Cop's Statements in Murder Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Judge: City Doesn't Have To Hand Over Cop's Statements in Murder Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DOCUMENT 37

The requested records include a statement or statements made by defendant William

REQUESTED INFORMATION NOT RELATED TO DEFENDANT WILLIAM DARBY

(1) that the requested documents are evidentiary and relevant;

STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT, WILLIAM DARBY

Upon consideration of numerous Alabama appellate decisions, the Court concludes

We must now determine if the non-disclosure of the statement

DONE this 28th day of September, 2018.

/s/ DONNA S. PATE

You might also like