Did the prosecution violate its duties under Brady v Maryland (373 US 83 [1963]) and its progeny by withholding the complainant's medical records until shortly before trial?

QUESTION PRESENTED | Benjamin Brownlee was accused of strangling a fellow DOCCS inmate with : a seatbelt while the two of them were being driven between prisons. That inmate and , the two correction officers in the van were the only witnesses at his trial, which | began more than 18 months after the incident, and more than a year after indictment. | Five days before trial, the prosecutor gave Mr. Brownlee’s attorney a medical ‘ report describing the absence of observable injury to the inmate-complainant; she | turned over color photographs depicting the absence of injury midway through her | case-in-chief. Defense counsel complained that these late disclosures were Brady violations that impaired his ability to defend his client, and asked that the indictment be dismissed. The trial court denied that request. A jury acquitted Mr. Brownlee of both counts charged in the indictment, but convicted him of a lesser included offense. f He now appeals. | _ | The question presented is: Did the prosecution violate its duties under Brady v Maryland (373 US 83 [1963]) and its progeny by withholding the complainant’s : medical records until shortly before trial? The trial court did not expressly rule that the late disclosure of the records was a Brady violation, though it offered defense counsel a remedy short of dismissal of the indictment, which counsel ultimately declined. / 1 ! F