Whether intentional pre-trial withholding of exculpatory information violates the Confrontation Clause

Questions Presented for Review 1. This Court has never finally resolved the question of whether intentional pre-trial withholding of exculpatory information violates the Confrontation Clause. This Court should grant this petition to review the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) that the Confrontation Clause is only a trial right, and that court’s rejection of the argument that Commonwealth’s intentional pre-trial withholding of exculpatory impeachment information concerning its star witness violated federal constitutional Confrontation Clause rights despite the fact that without this material, the defense was unable to effectively cross-examine the star witness and the law enforcement witnesses at trial. This issue should be finally decided by this Court and not the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. 2. Whether the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court misapplied federal law on whether the Commonwealth’s intentional pretrial withholding of exculpatory impeachment information concerning its star witness undermined confidence in the verdicts against the petitioners Barry and Cahill. 3. Whether the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court relieved the Commonwealth of its duty to disclose exculpatory evidence and infringed upon Barry and Cahill’s right to a jury trial where it overlooked a Brady ii violation because of the Commonwealth’s post-trial investigation which allegedly revealed new evidence implicating Barry in the shooting. 4. This Court should grant this petition to determine the important question of whether the Government has an affirmative obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence it learns of after the conviction under the principle of fundamental fairness. iti