DOJ-OGR-00008400.jpg

be NO Ww ws Oo OY ~] oO Ke) a oO he be No (ee) = Hs Oo _ OY a ~] a oO a Ke} 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 549-1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 6of 24 18 LB1ITMAX1 used to "attack the thoroughness and even the good faith of the investigation." That holding has only limited relevance here. First, the statement at issue in Kyles was probative because it suggested the defendant's innocence, not because it was evidence of the reasons for the charging decision or the investigation's timeline. Second, the Second Circuit in Watson v. Greene narrowly construed the holding in Kyles by clarifying that it "addresses only the prosecution's obligations to disclose Brady material" and "provides no guidance about what evidence must be admitted at trial or what lines of questioning must be permitted to ensure a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine adverse witnesses." Watson v. Greene, 640 F.3d 501, 512, n. 11 (2d Cir. 2011). Now the Second Circuit's decision in Watson does, however, suggest that some arguments about the thoroughness of the investigation are probative of guilt in some circumstances. In that case, law enforcement had received a tip that the defendant was innocent because another individual shot the victim. The Second Circuit stated that cross-examination of the lead investigating officer on that tip was probative because the jury could conclude that law enforcement had prematurely concluded the defendant was the shooter and it failed to investigate diligently the possibility that it was SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00008400