The Late Lab Notes and a Sworn Jury
Maria Alvarez is charged with DUI manslaughter after a blood draw showed a BAC of 0.19. Jury selection is complete and the jury is sworn; opening statements are set for Monday. On Thursday at 4:45 p.m., the prosecutor receives an email from the lab director: the analyst who tested Alvarez's blood failed to document a calibration error on the GC-MS instrument. The error was within the lab's acceptable range, but the analyst's bench notes were missing from the file. The prosecutor forwards the email to defense counsel that evening. On Friday morning, defense counsel moves to exclude the blood result, arguing a late discovery violation and a Brady violation. The prosecutor responds that the note is not exculpatory because the error was within acceptable limits and the result would not change. The judge says, 'I'll give the defense a continuance; that cures the problem.' Defense counsel objects, stating her blood-alcohol expert is out of the country for three weeks and the jury has already been sworn. The court must decide what hearing to hold and what remedy, if any, to impose.
1. What hearing must the trial court conduct, and what factors determine the remedy?
Read the worked answer
The court must conduct a Richardson hearing. It must determine whether the late disclosure was willful or inadvertent, whether it was trivial or substantial, and whether it prejudiced the defense's ability to prepare for trial. The court cannot simply announce a continuance without making those findings. Here, the missing bench notes concern the reliability of the blood test, which is the core of the DUI manslaughter charge. The late disclosure is substantial, and the prejudice is concrete: the defense expert is unavailable for three weeks and the jury is already sworn. A continuance may cure some prejudice, but it may not cure the loss of the defense expert or the taint of a sworn jury waiting. The court should consider lesser sanctions, but exclusion of the blood result is available if the violation was willful or if no lesser remedy can cure the prejudice. The court should also address whether the late disclosure violated Brady or Giglio.
2. The prosecutor argues the calibration error is not 'exculpatory' because it was within acceptable limits. How should the court evaluate that argument?
Read the worked answer
The Brady/Giglio duty is broader than evidence that proves innocence. It includes impeachment evidence that could affect the credibility of the analyst or the reliability of the test. The fact that the error was within the lab's acceptable range does not make it irrelevant; the defense may argue that the analyst failed to follow documentation protocols, that the instrument was not properly calibrated, or that the reported 0.19 is less reliable than the State claims. Materiality is judged by whether there is a reasonable probability that disclosure would have changed the result, considering the cumulative effect. The prosecutor should not unilaterally decide that the evidence is immaterial. The court should review the bench notes in camera if necessary and make a record.
3. If the court orders a continuance over defense objection, what should defense counsel do to preserve the issue?
Read the worked answer
Counsel should object on the record, request a mistrial or, if the jury is sworn, a discharge of the jury, and explain why a continuance cannot cure the prejudice. Counsel should proffer what the absent expert would testify to and how the late notes would change cross-examination. Counsel should also request that the court make specific Richardson findings, including willfulness, substantiality, and prejudice. If the court grants a continuance, counsel should ask for an order excluding the blood result or, alternatively, for permission to reopen discovery and obtain a substitute expert. Counsel should preserve the Brady issue for appeal and consider whether the client's speedy-trial rights are affected.