ÿWPC : …UNV %¤U:ª 0Cä 0J' 0Tq 0^Å# 043 g w@o 4¯ 0xà D3; 0hn 0rÖ 0|H LÄ 0† 0– 1u& 0d› 0@ÿ B?U>\U*šB)ÄDCí AM0}¸˜P…àÛe3@Ésí<ä)“ F   æ!»ó%h®.v~1vÓ”2 AOg8ƶ8 0D|9 D/À9 Bï9(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular(ÿÿ$òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô3|x{ ( ¤T$¡¡Ó  Ó g h i Dj Dk l m Dn Do p Ó€Úƒç"Bÿÿÿÿÿÿ°(((3ß)$¤¤Ý ƒ¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó....'ÿÿdxd26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô $% ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d55557Border 1dd€-6Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÝ  ÝÔ€4ÔÔ€4ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€4XÔÌÌò òDecember€23,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€4ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ®Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÝ  ÝÓ ` °œXÓÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€4Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àThe€trial€judge€sentenced€Hutchison€to€serve€ten€years€as€a€RangeÏII€persistent€offender.€€This€court€affirmed€his€conviction€and€sentence€in€òòState€v.ÏLeonard€D.€Hutchisonóó,€No.€1028€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€July€23,€1987).€€Ì †Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÝ  ÝÓ ` °œXÓà8 àà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€4Ôà àAt€the€first€trial,€Ray€Cate€represented€Leonard€HutchisonÏand€Don€Coffey€was€counsel€for€James€Harper.€€Doug€Trant€served€asÏdefense€counsel€for€Hutchison€at€the€second€trial,€and€Harper€retainedÏRay€Shirley.Ì {Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÝ  ÝÓ ` °œXÓÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àÔ€4ÔAs€a€Range€I€offender,€Harper€received€concurrent€sentences€of€Ïfive€years€for€burglary€and€three€years€for€assault.€€Hutchison,€a€Range€IIÏoffender,€€was€sentenced€to€consecutive€sentences€of€ten€years€for€burglary€andÏfive€years€for€assault.€€This€court€affirmed€their€convictions€in€òòState€v.€Harperóó,Ï753€S.W.2d€360€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€€Harperððs€€sentence€expired€on€Feb.Ï21,€1992.€€Hutchison€was€paroled€on€March€22,€1996.Ì ÑÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÝ  ÝÓ ` °œXÓÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àÔ€4ÔNothing€in€the€record€indicates€that€Owenby€ever€supplied€theÏinformation€to€the€Knoxville€Police€Department.€€Owenby€did€not€take€the€standÏat€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€The€parties€stipulated€that€he€had€noÏrecollection€of€receiving€the€information€from€Agent€Mann.Ì )Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ ` °œXÓÔ€4Ôà8 à€òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àThe€ð ð302s"€on€Allen€and€McClanahan€are€dated€NovemberÌ14,€1985€and€December€13,€1985€respectively.Ì ¿Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ ` °œXÓÔ€4Ôà8 à€òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àThis€court€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€HutchisonððsÌmotion€to€reopen€in€€òòState€v.€Leonard€D.€Hutchisonóó,€No.€1285€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏKnoxville,€Nov.€7,€1990).€€Harper€also€filed€a€motion€to€reopen€and€his€motionÏwas€also€denied.Ì ãÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ ` °œXÓà8 à€òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àÔ€4ÔHutchison€filed€three€petitions:€€No.€33993€on€August€29,€Ì1988,€No.€35138€on€December€7,€1988,€and€No.€36742€on€April€20,€1989.€€AnÏamendment€to€No.€33993€was€filed€on€Feb.€6,€1990.€€Petition€No.€35138Ïconcerned€a€different€criminal€episode€and€was€not€heard€with€the€otherÏpetitions.€€Ì ÚÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àÔ€4Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àIn€òòSandsóó,€the€court€uses€the€clause€ð ðwhen€the€limitationsÏperiod€would€normally€have€begunðð€to€denote€the€commencement€of€the€timeÏperiod€that€is€limited€by€the€applicable€statute€of€limitations.€€It€does€not€refer€toÏthe€commencement€of€the€ð ðbarðð€imposed€by€the€statute.Ì ‰Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÝ  Ýà àÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà8 àÔ€4ÔThe€record€does€not€include€the€exactÏdate€of€filing,€but€the€Ìmotion€was€filed€either€in€late€1987€or€early€1988.€€Harperððs€motion€was€deniedÏprior€to€the€denial€of€Hutchisonððs€motion€on€June€26,€1989.Ì <Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€4Ôà8 àThis€ruling,€of€course,€does€not€apply€toÏHutchisonððs€Ìpetitions€which€he€filed€in€1988€and€1989,€well€before€the€1990€deadline.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€4Ôà àWe€note€in€passing€that€at€the€second€trial,€Hutchison€hadÏHall€and€€McClanahan€available€as€witnesses.€€Apparently,€the€plan€was€to€offerÏHall€as€a€witness€that€he€(Hall)€fired€the€shots€at€the€victim€and€then,€if€HallÏdenied€this€scenario,€to€offer€McClanahanððs€testimony€in€order€to€insert€intoÏevidence€Hallððs€prior€extra„judicial€admissions.€€This€plan€was€thwarted€whenÏMcClanahan€disappeared€before€Hall€could€be€called,€and€for€this€reason€HallÏwas€not€called.€€Harperððs€attorney€knew€of€the€planned€testimony.€€The€onlyÏaspect€of€the€Hall€scenario€that€was€unknown€at€the€time€of€trial€was€the€allegedÏinformation€possessed€by€Paul€Allen€that€implicated€Hall.€€However,€Allen€neverÏtestified€at€any€proceeding€in€this€cause€and,€significantly,€did€not€testify€at€theÏpost„conviction€hearing.€à àÌà àÌà àÌ ±Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€4Ôà8 àFor€instance,€the€prosecution€argued€that€the€motionÏto€Ìcontinue€filed€by€Don€Coffey,€Harper's€attorney€at€the€first€trial,€indicates€that€theÏdefense€had€the€results€long€before€the€first€trial.€€The€language€of€the€motion€isÏambiguous€because€it€states€that€"only€today,€February€3,€1984,€was€the€affiantÏadvised€that€scientific€tests€have€been€conducted€by€the€F.B.I.,€the€results€ofÏwhich€will€necessitate€further€testing€by€the€defendants.€.€."€€Similarly,€theÏprosecution€contended€that€an€exchange€at€the€first€trial€between€Coffey€and€theÏprosecutor€shows€that€Coffey€held€the€report€in€his€hand€for€a€brief€momentÏduring€the€cross„examination€of€€Arthur€Bohanan,€a€police€officer,€on€the€subjectÏof€€the€victim's€hand€swabs.€€Ìà àà àà àCoffey:€€à àAnd€the€report€came€back€inconclusive?Ìà àà àà àBohanan:€€à àYes,€sir.Ìà àà àà àCoffey:à8 àDoes€thatÏmean€that€heÏcould€haveÏshot,€or€thatÏhe€could€notÏhave€shot?€ItÏcould€haveÏbeen€eitherÏway?Ìà àà àà àBohanan:à8 àWell,€in€a€testÏof€that€type€„„ÏI€have€theÏreport€here,€ifÏyou€wouldÏlike€it.Ìà àà àà àCoffey:à àIf€I€might€see€it?€Is€this€from€the€FBI€lab?Ìà àà àà àBohanan:à àThis€is€from€the€FBI€lab.€€yes,€sir.Ìà àà àà àCoffey:à8 àWould€youÏread€thatÏrelevant€partÏof€the€reportÏto€the€jury,ÏMr.ÏBohanan?Ìà àÌOn€the€other€hand,€Doug€Trant€and€Ray€Shirley,€counsel€for€the€defense€at€theÏsecond€trial,€both€testified€that€they€found€no€copies€of€the€report€either€in€theÏcourt€file€or€in€the€files€provided€by€the€prior€attorneys.€Hutchison€testified€that€heÏfirst€saw€a€copy€of€one€report€when€he€received€some€documents€through€theÏFreedom€of€Information€Act€€in€1989.€€He€€finally€received€copies€of€all€threeÏreports€in€either€late€1991€or€early€1992.€€In€addition,€the€petitioners€allege€thatÏactual€lab€results€show€that€at€least€two€of€the€stateððs€witnesses€gave€falseÏtestimony.€Ì ^Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€4Ôà8 àThe€reports€were€not€introduced€atÏeither€trial.€At€the€second€Ìtrial€the€parties€stipulated€that€the€results€of€the€tests€were€inconclusive.€ÏDefense€counsel€testified€that€they€relied€upon€the€statements€of€the€assistantÏdistrict€attorney€and€never€saw€copies€of€the€reports.€€The€assistant€districtÏattorney,€who€was€not€involved€in€the€first€trial,€said€he€assumed€that€defenseÏcounsel€had€copies€in€their€possession.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€3ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° Òò òÔ€4ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€‹ÊXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÙ€€ÙßR€786A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌ€à@ àAT€KNOXVILLE€Ìó óÌò òà@ àJANUARY€1997€SESSIONó óÌÌÌÌÓ  Óò òLEONARD€D.€HUTCHISON,à àó ó)Ìò òand€JAMES€HARPERó óà àà à)à àNo.€€03C01„9606„CR„00232Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellees,à àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àKnox€CountyÌvs.à àà àà àà àà à)à àà àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Richard€R.€Baumgartner,€JudgeÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àó ó)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Post„Conviction€„€Stateððs€Appeal)Ìà àAppellant.à àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEES:ÌÌJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPà àà àà àROBERT€C.€EDWARDSÌAttorney€General€&€Reporterà àà àAttorney€for€Leonard€D.€HutchinsonÌà àà àà àà àà àà à707€Market€St.ÌMERRILYN€FEIRMANà àà àà àKnoxville,€TN€37902ÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌCriminal€Justice€Divisionà àà àà àRAYMOND€A.€SHIRLEY,€JR.Ì450€James€Robertson€Parkwayà àà àAttorney€for€James€HarperÌNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àà àà à603€Main€Ave.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àKnoxville,€TN€€37902ÌÌMICHAEL€L.€FLYNNÌDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌ5th€Judicial€DistrictÌPHILLIP€H.€MORTONÌAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌ363€Court€St.ÌMaryville,€TN€37804„5906ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€____________________ÌÌÌò òREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDó óÌÌÌCURWOOD€WITT€ÌJUDGEÌÌÌÇÓ  Óà@ àò òOPINIONÓÓÓ` °‚X˜XÓó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€appellees,€Leonard€D.€Hutchison€and€James€Harper,€wereÏconvicted€of€€burglary€of€an€automobile€and€assault€with€the€intent€to€commitÏsecond€degree€murder€on€November€1,€1985.€€Hutchison€had€previously€beenÏconvicted€of€grand€larceny€in€1983€and€€possession€of€burglary€tools€in€1984.€€ÏTheir€convictions€were€affirmed€on€direct€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v,€Harper€andÏHutchisonóó,€753€S.W.2d€360€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€œ1987),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.ÏOct.€19,€1987).›€€Hutchison€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€on€August€œ29,›Ï1988,€and€Harper€filed€his€petition€on€January€21,€1993.€€Following€anÏevidentiary€hearing€on€January€22,€1996,€the€trial€court€granted€the€defendantsððÏpetitions€finding€that€the€stateððs€failure€to€provide€the€defendants€withÏinformation€about€an€exculpatory€witness€from€the€Federal€Bureau€ofÏInvestigation€that€was€material€violated€the€rule€of€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.Ï83,€83€S.Ct.€1194€(1963),€and€that€a€reasonable€probability€existed€that€had€theÏevidence€been€disclosed€to€the€defendants,€the€result€of€the€proceedings€wouldÏhave€been€different.€€ÌÌà àThe€state€now€appeals€contending€that€ÌÓÓà àI.à8 àThe€state€has€no€duty€under€òòBrady€v.ÏMarylandóó€to€turn€over€exculpatoryÏinformation€of€which€it€has€noÏknowledge€and€over€which€it€hasÏneither€possession€nor€control.€€ÌÌà àII.à8 àHarperððs€petition€for€post„convictionÏrelief,€filed€on€January€21,€1993,€sixÏyears€after€the€Tennessee€SupremeÍCourt€denied€his€application€forÏpermission€to€appeal,€€is€barred€by€theÏstatute€of€limitations.€€ÌÌà àThe€petitioners€raise€the€following€issue:€ÌÌà àIII.à8 àWhether€the€trial€court€should€haveÏgranted€a€new€trial€because€theÏprosecution€breached€its€duty€to€furnishÏexculpatory€evidence€by€withholding€anÏobviously€exculpatory€lab€report€and€byÏallowing€state€witnesses€to€testify€inÏdirect€contradiction€to€its€results.€€(ThisÏexculpatory„evidence€issue€is€separateÏand€distinct€from€the€exculpatory„evidence€issue€mentioned€above.)ÌÌÌÓÓà àFor€the€reasons€discussed€below,€we€reverse€the€trial€courtððsÏjudgment€granting€post„conviction€relief€because€the€state€failed€to€provide€theÏpetitioners€with€information€possessed€by€the€Federal€Bureau€of€InvestigationÏabout€an€exculpatory€witness.€€As€to€the€second€exculpatory„evidence€issue,€weÏremand€the€case€to€the€trial€court€for€consideration€of€Hutchisonððs€claim€that€theÏprosecution€breached€its€duty€to€disclose€exculpatory€evidence€by€failing€toÏprovide€laboratory€reports€prepared€by€the€F.B.I.€and€by€allowing€stateÏwitnesses€to€testify€in€contradiction€to€those€results.€€ÌÌà àBecause€the€facts€surrounding€this€appeal€are€convoluted€andÏcomplex,€we€must€discuss€them€in€some€detail.€€€During€the€early€morning€hoursÏof€Sept.€1,€1982,€€the€victim,€James€David€Comer,€was€disturbed€by€tappingÏsounds€which€came€from€the€parking€lot€in€the€apartment€complex€in€which€heÏlived.€€He€arose€and€stepped€out€onto€the€balcony.€€He€shined€a€powerfulÍflashlight€into€a€1980€Oldsmobile€Cutlass€belonging€to€Jane€Marie€Wells.€€TwoÏmen€immediately€emerged€from€the€car€and€ran€away€across€the€lot.€€ComerÏdialed€911€but€set€the€telephone€down€without€waiting€for€an€answer.€€€He€ranÏdownstairs€to€his€car.€€He€was€driving€around€the€area€looking€for€the€men€whenÏhe€encountered€an€ð ðold€junkerðð€covered€with€purplish€red€primer.€€He€more€orÏless€forced€the€car€to€the€curb.€€Approaching€the€driverððs€side€window€with€hisÏgun€in€his€hand,€he€told€the€two€men€that€they€had€been€caught€and€that€theÏpolice€were€on€the€way.€€The€driver€gunned€the€car€and,€as€Comer€rolled€backÏacross€the€trunk€lid,€he€was€struck€by€a€bullet.€€He€fired€one€shot€at€the€carÏbefore€he€was€hit€twice€more.€€The€car€then€sped€away.€€The€next€day,€whenÏComer€viewed€a€photographic€line„up€prepared€by€officers€from€the€auto€theftÏdivision€of€the€Knoxvillle€Police€Department,€he€identified€the€petitioner,ÏLeonard€Hutchison,€as€the€driver€of€the€car.€€Hutchison€was€arrested,€and€theÏpolice€seized€a€bag€containing€tools€commonly€used€in€the€theft€of€automobilesÏand€a€1970€Ford€Mustang€painted€in€red€primer.€€Based€on€a€telephone€callÏHutchison€made€to€James€Harper€from€the€booking€room€at€the€jail,€HarperððsÏpicture€was€also€placed€in€a€photo€array.€€€When€Comer€identified€HarperððsÏphotograph€as€being€that€of€the€second€thief,€the€police€arrested€Harper.€ÏNeither€Hutchison€nor€Harper€gave€a€statement€to€the€police,€and€both€menÏhave€maintained€their€innocence€throughout.€€€Ìà àAt€the€first€trial€in€December,€1984,€Hutchison€and€Harper€raisedÏan€alibi€defense€and€testified€on€their€own€behalf.€€The€jury€found€HutchisonÏguilty€of€the€possession€of€burglary€tools€but€was€unable€to€reach€a€verdict€onÍthe€other€charges.× ƒ9 ××  ×€€€€The€defendants€retained€successor€counsel€and€wereÏretried€on€August€5,€6,€and€7,€1985.× ƒ: ××  ×€€Hutchison€rested€without€putting€on€anyÏproof,€and€Harperððs€ex„wife€and€a€nurse€testified€about€Harperððs€medicalÏcondition.€€Each€defendant€was€convicted€of€burglary€of€an€automobile€and€ofÏassault€with€the€intent€to€commit€second€degree€murder.× ƒ; ××  ×€€€€ÌÌà àThe€convictions€in€this€case,€however,€are€only€the€beginning€ofÏthe€story.€€At€some€point€prior€to€the€first€trial,€€the€defendants€became€aware€thatÏa€person€named€Tommy€McClanahan€had€information€that€might€exculpateÏthem.€€The€record€indicates€that€on€February€6,€1984,€Harperððs€attorney€movedÏfor€a€continuance€in€order€to€locate€and€interview€€McClanahan.€€McClanahanÏdid€not€testify,€but€during€Harperððs€testimony€at€the€first€trial,€Harper€blurted€outÏthat€€ð ðBilly€Hallðð€was€the€ð ðshooter.ðð€€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€HutchisonÏtestified€that€at€some€point,€probably€€between€the€first€and€second€trial,€he€wasÍvisited€by€two€F.B.I.€agents€who€told€him€that€they€had€information€indicating€thatÏBilly€Hall€and€someone€else€had€actually€committed€the€burglary€and€theÏassault.€€Both€defense€counsel€and€the€prosecutor€testified€that€the€defense€hadÏsubpoenaed€Billy€Hall€and€that€he€was€present€throughout€the€second€trial.€€TheÏstate€paraded€Hall€before€the€jury€at€one€point,€but€he€was€never€placed€on€theÏstand.€€Hutchisonððs€counsel€at€the€second€trial€had€Tommy€McClanahan€hiddenÏin€his€office,€and€he€intended€to€use€McClanahan€to€impeach€Hallððs€testimony.€ÏThe€plan€fell€apart,€however,€when€McClanahan€disappeared€on€the€last€day€ofÏthe€trial.ÌÌà àIn€October,€1985,€while€the€defendants€were€awaiting€sentencing,ÏRichard€OððRear,€a€supervisor€in€the€Knoxville€F.B.I.€office,€visited€Hutchison€atÏHutchisonððs€request.€€As€a€result€of€this€meeting,€OððRear€met€with€Agent€ClydeÏMerryman€who€had€worked€in€an€undercover€investigation€of€East€TennesseeÏauto€theft€rings€in€1982.€€He€told€OððRear€that€on€September€2,€1982,€he€andÏAgent€Joe€Mann€had,€as€part€of€their€undercover€activities,€spoken€with€PaulÏAllen,€who€ran€a€ð ðchop„shopðð€in€Newport,€and€Tommy€McClanahan,€who€alsoÏwas€involved€in€car€theft€activity.€€€In€separate€conversations,€McClanahan€andÏAllen€told€them€that€Billy€Hall€admitted€that€he€was€the€man€who€shot€JamesÏDavid€Comer.€€According€to€the€agents,€Hall€brought€his€primer„covered€1968ÏPontiac€to€Allen€to€be€ð ðchoppedðð€because€it€might€be€identified.€€Hall€allegedlyÏpointed€out€a€bullet€hole€in€the€car.€€Neither€McClanahan€nor€Allen€knew€theÏtrue€identity€of€the€agents,€and€Merryman€and€Mann€found€their€information€toÍbe€highly€credible.€€However,€since€they€were€operating€deep€undercover,€theyÏdecided€to€call€another€agent,€Rex€Owenby,€€who€had€contacts€within€theÏKnoxville€Police€Department€and€give€him€the€information.× ƒ< ××  ×€€Contrary€to€F.B.I.Ïprocedure,€no€one€made€a€written€record€of€this€information.€€ÌÌà àAfter€meeting€with€Hutchison,€OððRear€asked€Merryman€to€interviewÏMcClanahan€and€Allen€again.€€At€the€second€interviews,€both€Allen€andÏMcClanahan€knew€that€Merryman€was€an€F.B.I.€agent€but€€both€men€toldÏsubstantially€the€same€story€as€they€had€in€1982.€€€Merryman€then€memorializedÏthe€interviews€on€what€are€known€in€F.B.I.€parlance€as€ð ð302€forms.ðð€× ƒ= ××  ×€€As€œa€result›Ïof€these€interviews,€OððRear€sent€a€letter€to€the€Knox€County€District€AttorneyÏGeneral€on€January€9,€1986€advising€him€that€the€F.B.I.€had€information€thatÏtended€to€exculpate€Hutchison€and€Harper.€€He€forwarded€copies€of€the€302Ïforms€a€month€later.€€Shortly€after€McClanahan€passed€a€polygraph€test€onÏAugust€24,€1986,€the€district€attorneyððs€office€notified€Doug€Trant,€€HutchisonððsÏattorney,€that€the€F.B.I.€had€information€concerning€the€crime€for€whichÏHutchison€and€Harper€had€been€convicted.€€ÌÌà àBased€on€the€conversations€he€had€with€representatives€of€theÏdistrict€attorney€generalððs€office€and€the€F.B.I.,€Trant€filed€a€Motion€to€Reopen€onÏHutchisonððs€behalf€on€August€26,€1987.€€The€motion€was€withdrawn€withoutÏprejudice€and€then€refiled€on€March€2,€1989.€€Judge€Randy€Nichols€denied€theÏmotion€that€same€day€because€it€contained€no€affidavits€from€the€allegedÏwitnesses.× ƒ> ××  ×€€Meanwhile,€Hutchison€began€writing€letters€to€obtain€the€F.B.I.Ïdocuments€under€the€Freedom€of€Information€Act,€and€he€filed€petitions€for€post„conviction€relief€in€each€of€his€convictions€alleging€both€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€and€òòBradyóó€violations.× ƒ? ××  ×€€€James€Harper€filed€a€petition€for€post„convictionÏrelief€on€January€21,€1993,€alleging€only€that€the€state€had€violated€òòBradyóó.€€ÏUltimately,€the€petitions€were€consolidated€before€a€single€judge€and€anÏevidentiary€€hearing€was€held€on€Feb.€1€and€2,€œ1995.›€€œThe›€post„conviction€courtÏtook€the€case€under€advisement€and€granted€the€petitions€on€January€22,€1996.€ÏOn€February€12,€1996,€the€judge€entered€an€amended€Memorandum€OpinionÏfor€record„keeping€purposes.ÌÌà àThe€post„conviction€judge€made€extensive€factual€findingsÍconcerning€the€information€Agents€Merryman€and€Mann€had€acquired€fromÏMcClanahan€and€Allen.€€The€memorandum€finds€that€the€defense€did€not€haveÏthe€information€developed€by€the€F.B.I.€prior€to€trial,€and€that€the€information€wasÏmaterial,€clearly€exculpatory,€suppressed,€and€favorable€to€the€defendants.€ÏAlthough€no€law€enforcement€agency€or€any€member€of€the€prosecutionÏintentionally€withheld€evidence,€€the€court€concluded€that,€in€this€instance€whereÏthe€state€utilized€the€F.B.I.€laboratory€to€further€its€investigation€of€a€case,€it€wasÏfundamentally€unfair€and€constitutionally€suspect€for€the€F.B.I.€to€supply€theÏprosecution€with€some€but€not€all€of€the€material€evidence€in€its€possession.€€ÏLastly,€the€court€found€that,€had€the€information€been€disclosed€to€theÏdefendants€prior€to€trial,€a€reasonable€probability€existed€that€the€result€of€theÏproceedings€would€have€been€different.€€€The€trial€court€made€no€factualÏfindings€and€drew€no€legal€conclusions€regarding€the€effectiveness€ofÏHutchisonððs€trial€counsel,€the€second€òòBradyóó€issue€involving€the€allegedÏsuppression€of€the€F.B.I.€laboratory€reports,€or€the€stateððs€argument€that€HarperððsÏpetition€was€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.€€€€Based€on€its€findings,€the€trialÏcourt€granted€the€petitions€for€post„conviction€relief.€ÌÌà àThe€state€appeals€contending€that€òòBradyóó€does€not€require€the€stateÏto€investigate€for€the€defendant€or€to€made€blanket€requests€from€every€federalÏand€state€agency€that€might€possibly€have€information€when€the€state€has€noÏreason€to€believe€that€such€information€exists.€€The€state€also€contends€thatÏJames€Harperððs€petition€should€be€dismissed€as€barred€by€the€statute€ofÍlimitations.ÌÌÓ  Óà àI.à àò òThe€Statute€of€Limitationsó óÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  Óà àWe€begin€by€addressing€€the€stateððs€second€issue€which€concernsÏonly€James€Harperððs€petition.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€Harper€to€five€years€forÏburglary€of€an€automobile€and€three€years€for€assault€with€the€intent€to€commitÏsecond€degree€murder€in€1985.€€This€court€affirmed€his€convictions€on€June€1,Ï1987.€€Permission€to€appeal€was€denied€on€July€31,€1987.€€As€of€July€1,€1986,€Ïthe€legislature€limited€the€filing€of€petitions€for€post„conviction€relief€to€ð ðwithinÏthree€(3)€years€of€the€date€of€the€final€action€of€the€highest€state€appellate€courtÏto€which€an€appeal€is€taken.€.€.€.ðð€€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„102€(1990)Ï(repealed€May€10,€1995€and€replaced€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„202(a)Ï(Supp.€1996)).€€€€Pursuant€to€the€law€at€the€time,€Harper€had€until€July€31,€1990Ïto€file€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€petitioner€acknowledges€thatÏmore€than€three€years€passed€between€the€date€of€his€convictions€and€the€filingÏof€his€petition.€€€He€contends€that€a€strict€and€mechanical€application€of€theÏstatute€would€improperly€cut€off€his€right€to€raise€a€legitimate€claim€for€relief€withÏrespect€to€the€F.B.I.€laboratory€reports,€òòseeóó€€òòBurford€v.€Stateóó,€845€S.W.2d€204,Ï211€(Tenn.1992),€and€that€the€1995€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€providedÏhim€with€a€one„year€window€in€which€to€file€a€claim€regarding€the€suppressionÏof€the€other€information€possessed€by€the€F.B.I.ÌÌà àThe€1995€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€creates€no€window€ofÏopportunity€for€petitionerððs€claim.€€Our€supreme€court€recently€held€that€the€ActÏdid€not€revive€previously€expired€post„conviction€petition€claims.€€òòArnold€CarterÏv.€Stateóó,€„„„S.W.2d€„„„,€No.€03S01„9612„CR„00117€(Tenn.,€Knoxville,€Sept.€8,Ï1997).€€Harperððs€petition€is€controlled€by€the€law€effective€on€the€date€it€was€filedÏin€1993,€and€his€time€for€filing€a€petition€expired€on€July€31,€1990€unless€he€isÏable€to€meet€the€requirements€of€òòBurfordóó€as€interpreted€in€òòSands€v.€Stateóó,€903ÏS.W.2d€297€(Tenn.1995).ÌÌà àIn€òòBurfordóó,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€held€that€a€strict€andÏmechanical€application€of€the€statute€of€limitations€denying€a€petitioner€theÏopportunity€to€seek€relief€based€upon€legitimate€but€later„arising€grounds€would,Ïunder€some€circumstances,€violate€due€process.€€òòBurfordóó,€845€S.W.2d€at€210.€€€ÏIn€òòSandsóó,€the€supreme€court€concluded€that€the€basic€rule€of€€òòBurfordóó€was€thatÏððdue€process€prohibits€the€strict€application€of€the€post„conviction€statute€ofÏlimitations€to€bar€a€petitionerððs€claim€when€the€grounds€for€relief,€whether€legalÏor€factual,€arise€.€.€.€after€the€point€at€which€the€limitations€period€would€normallyÏhave€begun€to€run.ðð€€òòSands€v.€Stateóó,€903€S.W.2d€at€301.€€Justice€Daughtery,€€inÏher€concurrence€in€òòBurfordóó,€€discusses€a€hypothetical€situation€in€whichÏevidence€suppressed€by€the€prosecution€might€surface€many€years€after€a€trialÏwas€completed.€€845€S.W.2d€at€211.€€€Harper€contends€that€DaughtreyððsÏhypothetical€has€become€Harperððs€reality€in€this€case.ÌÌà àIn€òòSandsóó,€the€supreme€court€established€a€three„step€analysis€toÏguide€lower€courts€in€applying€the€òòBurfordóó€rule€to€specific€factual€situations:ÌÓÓà à1.à8 à€A€court€should€determine€when€theÏlimitations€period€would€normally€haveÏbegun€to€run;× ƒ@ ××  ×ÌÌà à2.à8 àThe€court€must€determine€whether€theÏgrounds€for€relief€actually€arose€afterÏthe€limitations€period€commenced;ÌÌà à3.à8 àIf€the€grounds€are€truly€later€arising,€theÏcourt€must€consider€whether€a€strictÏapplication€of€the€limitations€periodÏwould€effectively€deny€the€petitioner€aÏreasonable€opportunity€to€present€hisÏclaim.€€ÌÌÓÓ903€S.W.2d€at€301.€€In€this€case,€the€record€readily€establishes€that€in€normalÏcircumstances€Harperððs€opportunity€to€file€for€post„conviction€relief€commencedÏon€July€31,€1987€and€ended€on€July€31,€1990.€€It€is€more€difficult€to€determineÏwhether€the€grounds€for€relief€are€truly€later€arising.€€Because€Harper€allegesÏthat€the€state€failed€to€provide€him€with€two€different€kinds€of€exculpatoryÏinformation,€we€must€examine€each€separately.ÌÌà àThe€post„conviction€court€made€numerous€factual€findings€withÏrespect€to€the€agentsðð€information€about€the€crime.€€It€found€that€within€a€day€orÏtwo€of€the€burglary€and€shooting€in€September,€1982,€two€separate€individualsÍtold€Agents€Merryman€and€Mann€that€Billy€Hall€was€an€alleged€participant€in€theÏincident.€€The€agents€found€the€information€to€be€credible€and€realistic;Ïhowever,€Merryman€and€Mann€could€not€state€with€certainty€that€Mann€hadÏactually€relayed€this€information€to€any€other€law€enforcement€agents€althoughÏthey€believed€that€they€had.€€The€parties€stipulated€at€the€hearing€that€Agent€RexÏOwenby€could€not€recall€hearing€this€information€prior€to€October,€1985.€€TheÏinformation€was€memorialized€in€ð ð302"€forms€after€the€second€interviews€inÏNovember€and€December€of€1985.€€OððRear€notified€the€Knox€County€DistrictÏAttorney€General€on€January€9,€1986.€€The€memorandum€does€not€recite€theÏexact€date€that€the€petitioners€learned€of€the€statements€of€Allen€andÏMcClanahan.€€It€simply€states€that€ð ð[u]pon€receipt€.€.€.€defense€counsel€for€Mr.ÏHutchison€and€Mr.€Harper€were€notified€of€this€information.ððÌÌà àThe€record€on€appeal€indicates€that€Hutchisonððs€attorney€learnedÏaround€September€1,€1986€that€the€F.B.I.€had€passed€some€exculpatoryÏinformation€to€the€District€Attorney€General.€€Ray€Shirley,€Harperððs€attorney,Ïcertainly€knew€of€the€information€in€late€1987€when€he€filed€a€Motion€to€ReopenÏbased€on€the€existence€of€the€ð ð302"€forms.× ƒA ××  ×€€The€limitations€period€did€not€beginÏto€run€until€œOctober€19,›€œ1987,€the€date€permission€to€review€the€direct€appealÏwas€denied€by€our€supreme€court.›€€Therefore,€the€existence€of€the€ð ð302"€formsÍand€the€information€contained€in€them€may€be€viewed€as€later„arising€grounds,Ïindulging€for€Harperððs€sake€the€assumption€that€his€attorney€did€not€receive€theÏinformation€prior€to€œOctober€19,›€1987€(even€though€Hutchison€was€activelyÏinvolved€in€investigating€the€information€in€the€fall€of€1986).€œHarper›€filed€aÏmotion€to€re„open,€and€upon€a€hearing€the€motion€was€denied€on€June€26,Ï1989.€€Even€if€we€further€indulge€Harper€and€not€charge€him€with€the€relevantÏknowledge€about€Allen€until€June€26,€1989,€his€post„conviction€claim€on€thisÏissue€is€barred.€€œCertainly,€the›€òòSandsóó€dispensation€is€not€infinitely€œopen„ended.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòOððDonnell€v.€Stateóó,€905€S.W.€2d€951,€953€(Tenn.€Crim€App.€1993).›€€HarperÏis€afforded€a€reasonable€opportunity€to€present€his€claim€if€the€òòSandsó󀜀remedial›Ïlimitations€period€œof€these€years€commenced›€no€later€than€June€26,€œ1989.€ÏòòOððDonnellóó,€905€S.W.2d€at€953.€›€œEven›€under€this€liberal€œview€of€the€facts›€the€post„conviction€claim€became€barred€on€June€26,€1992,€some€seven€months€prior€toÏthe€filing€of€Harperððs€petition€on€January€21,€1993.€Pursuant€to€the€analysisÏprescribed€in€òòSandsóó,€òòBurfordóó€provides€Harper€with€no€effective€relief€from€theÏstatute€of€limitations€with€respect€to€the€information€obtained€by€AgentsÏMerryman€and€Mann.€€Our€consideration€of€this€alleged€òòBradyóó€violation€isÏbarred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.× ƒB ××  ×€However,€as€discussed€in€Part€II€below,Ïeven€if€Harper€had€timely€filed€his€petition,€he€would€have€been€entitled€to€noÏrelief€on€this€the€first€òòBradyóó€issue.ÌÌà àThe€alleged€exculpatory€information€on€the€second€òòBradyóó€issue,Ïthe€information€found€in€the€reports€prepared€by€the€F.B.I.€laboratory,€presents€aÏdifferent€problem.€€The€evidence€in€the€record€is€contradictory€and€inconclusive,Ïand€the€post„conviction€court€made€no€findings€of€fact€from€which€we€canÏdetermine€when€these€grounds€arose.€€Factual€issues€raised€by€the€evidenceÏmust€be€resolved€by€the€trial€court.€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1990).€€Therefore,€upon€remand,€the€post„conviction€court€mustÏdetermine€whether€these€grounds€are€truly€later€arising€and€whether€a€strictÏapplication€of€the€limitations€period€would€effectively€deny€the€petitioner€aÏreasonable€opportunity€to€present€his€claim€about€the€F.B.I.€lab€report.€€€òòSandsóó,Ï903€S.W.2d€at€301.ÌÌÓ  Óò òII.ó ó€€€ò òHutchisonððs€òòBradyóó€Issuesó óÌÌÓ  Óà àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€Hutchison€argued€that€the€stateÏfailed€to€provide€him€with€exculpatory€information€(1)€possessed€by€F.B.I.€agentsÏand€(2)€contained€within€the€F.B.I.€laboratory€results€in€violation€of€òòBrady€v.ÏMarylandóó,€373€U.S.€83,€83€S.Ct.€1194€(1963).€€In€òòBradyóó,€the€United€StatesÏSupreme€Court€held€that€the€prosecution€has€a€compelling€duty€to€furnish€theÏaccused€with€exculpatory€evidence€pertaining€either€to€the€accusedððs€guilt€orÏinnocence€or€to€the€potential€punishment€that€may€be€imposed€and€thatÏð ðsuppression€by€the€prosecution€of€evidence€favorable€to€an€accused€violatesÍdue€process€where€the€evidence€is€material€either€to€guilt€or€to€punishment,Ïirrespective€of€the€good€faith€or€bad€faith€of€the€prosecution.ðð€€373€U.S.€at€87;€83ÏS.Ct.€at€1196„97.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòBranch€v.€Stateóó,€4€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€164,€469ÏS.W.2d€533€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1969).€€The€duty€to€disclose€arises€when€(1)€theÏevidence€is€material;€(2)€the€evidence€is€favorable€to€the€accused,€his€defense,Ïor€the€sentence€that€will€be€imposed€if€found€guilty;€(3)€the€state€suppressed€theÏevidence;€(4)€the€accused€has€made€a€proper€request€for€the€production€of€theÏevidence,€unless€the€evidence,€when€viewed€by€the€prosecution,€is€obviouslyÏexculpatory€in€nature€and€will€be€helpful€to€the€accused.€€òòUnited€States€v.ÏBagleyóó,€473€U.S.€667,€105€S.Ct.€3375€91985);€òòState€v.€Spurlockóó,€874€S.W.2dÏ602,€609€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).ÌÌà àThe€duty€to€disclose€extends€to€all€information€favorable€to€theÏaccused€whether€the€evidence€is€admissible€or€inadmissible.€€òòState€v.€Spurlockóó,Ï874€S.W.2d€at€609;€òòBranch€v.€Stateóó,€4€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€164;€469€S.W.2d€atÏ534.€€Evidence€that€would€be€useful€to€impeach€a€witness€must€also€beÏdisclosed.€€òòGiglio€v.€United€Statesóó,€405€U.S.€150,€92€S.Ct.€763€(1972).€€AlthoughÏòòBradyóó€does€not€require€the€state€to€investigate€for€the€defendant,€it€does€burdenÏthe€prosecution€with€the€responsibility€of€disclosing€statements€favorable€to€theÏdefense.€€òòState€v.€Reynoldsóó,€671€S.W.2d€854,€856€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984);ÏòòState€v.€Goodmanóó,€643€S.W.2d€375,€379„80€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€ThisÏresponsibility€extends€not€only€to€material€in€the€prosecutorððs€immediate€custodyÏbut€also€to€statements€in€the€possession€of€the€police€that€the€prosecutor€mayÍobtain€by€the€exercise€of€due€diligence.€òòState€v.€Hicksóó,€618€S.W.2d€510,€514Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€€Due€diligence€has€been€defined€as€consisting€of€Ïrequesting€€information€from€all€officers€participating€in€the€investigation€orÏpreparation€of€the€case.€€òòIdóó.€€The€duty€does€not€extend€to€information€that€theÏdefense€already€possesses€or€is€able€to€obtain,€or€to€information€not€in€theÏpossession€or€control€of€the€prosecution.€€òòBanks€v.€Statesóó,€556€S.W.2d€88,€90Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977).ÌÌà àWith€these€standards€in€mind,€we€address€the€two€òòBradyóó€issuesÏseparately€below.ÌÌò òA.€€Exculpatory€information€possessed€by€F.B.I.€agentsó óÌà àIn€post„conviction€proceedings,€the€petitioner€has€the€burden€ofÏproving€the€grounds€raised€in€the€petition€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€ÏòòClark€v.€Stateóó,€800€S.W.2d€500,€506€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€The€findings€ofÏfact€made€by€the€trial€court€at€the€conclusion€of€a€hearing€on€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€has€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict.€€òòClark€v.€Stateóó,€800€S.W.2d€atÏ506.€€In€this€instance,€the€post„conviction€judge€found€that,€although€there€wasÏno€evidence€of€bad€faith€on€the€part€of€any€law€enforcement€agency€or€member,ÏòòBradyóó€requires€that€the€information€in€the€possession€of€the€F.B.I.€should€haveÏbeen€made€available€to€the€defense€and€could€very€well€have€altered€theÏoutcome€if€it€had€been€supplied.€€The€state€argues€that€the€prosecution€cannotÏbe€required€to€turn€over€information€of€which€it€is€unaware€and€which€is€in€theÍsole€possession€and€control€of€a€federal€agency.€€We€agree€that€the€stateÏcannot€be€held€accountable€for€information€in€the€hands€of€a€federal€agency€asÏlong€as€the€state€had€no€knowledge€of€the€informationððs€existence€and€theÏfederal€agency€was€not€involved€in€the€investigation€or€preparation€of€the€case.ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€the€court€found€that,€within€a€day€or€two€of€the€burglaryÏand€shooting€in€1982,€agents€of€the€Federal€Bureau€of€Investigation€receivedÏinformation€from€two€separate€individuals€indicating€that€someone€other€thanÏLeonard€Hutchison€had€shot€James€David€Comer.€€The€information€containedÏsignificant€details€such€as€descriptions€of€the€vehicles€and€the€weapon€andÏstatements€of€how€the€incident€developed€and€concluded.€€The€agents€believedÏthat€they€had€passed€it€along€to€Agent€Rex€Owenby€who€had€contacts€within€theÏKnoxville€Police€Department.€€However,€no€one€involved€could€state€positivelyÏthat€the€information€had€been€forwarded€to€the€local€authorities.€€The€agentsÏformally€documented€this€information€after€interviewing€the€individuals€a€secondÏtime€in€November€and€December,€1985.€€Agent€Richard€OððRear€informed€theÏKnox€County€District€Attorney€Generalððs€office€in€January,€1986.€€€The€post„conviction€courtððs€memorandum€also€states€that€no€law€enforcement€agency€orÏany€member€of€the€prosecution€intentionally€withheld€the€evidence€and€that€theÏevidence€was€inadvertently€suppressed€until€1986.€€Hutchison€was€convicted€inÏAugust,€1985.ÌÌà àThe€post„conviction€court€then€concluded€that€the€evidence€wasÍexculpatory€and€material€in€that€a€reasonable€probability€existed€that€had€theÏevidence€been€disclosed€to€the€accused,€the€result€of€the€proceedings€wouldÏhave€been€different.€€Based€on€these€findings,€the€judge€granted€HutchisonððsÏpetition€for€relief.€€Although€the€record€supports€the€lower€courtððs€factual€findingsÏand€the€conclusion€that€the€information€was€both€exculpatory€and€material,€weÏcannot€agree€that,€on€these€facts,€the€prosecutor€had€a€duty€to€discloseÏinformation€in€the€possession€and€control€of€the€F.B.I.€agents.€€ÌÌà àHutchison€contends€correctly€that€when€the€state€uses€the€facilitiesÏof€the€F.B.I.€laboratory€for€various€scientific€tests,€the€F.B.I.€is€considered€anÏagent€of€the€State€of€Tennessee€for€the€purposes€of€Rule€16€(a)(1)(D),ÏTennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure.€€òòState€v.€Goodmanóó,€643€S.W.2d€375,Ï379€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982);€òòDavid€Palmer€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9303„CR„00079,€slip€op.€at€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€May€20,€1994).€€However,€weÏdo€not€find€that€the€result€in€òòGoodmanóó€€is€applicable€to€the€ð ð302"€forms€in€thisÏcase.€€Rule€16(a)(1)(D)€requires€the€state€to€allow€the€defendant€to€inspect€andÏcopy€the€results€or€reports€of€physical€or€mental€examinations,€scientific€testingÏor€experiments.€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16(a)(1)(D).€€€In€both€òòGoodmanóó€and€òòPalmeróó,Ïthe€reports€in€question€were€those€generated€by€the€F.B.I.€laboratory€and€wereÏof€the€kind€specifically€mentioned€in€Rule€16.€€€In€this€instance,€the€informationÏwas€neither€produced€by€nor€in€the€possession€of€the€F.B.I.€laboratory,€and€theÏinformation€did€not€involve€scientific€testing€or€test€results.ÌÌà àHutchison€also€mistakenly€relies€on€òòUnited€States€v.€Minskóó,€963ÏF.2d.€870€(6th€Cir.),€for€the€proposition€that€the€refusal€to€disclose€theÏinformation€in€ð ð302"€forms€violates€òòBradyóó.€€However,€òòMinskóó€involved€violations€ofÏfederal€law,€and€the€F.B.I.€undoubtedly€was€involved€in€the€investigation€andÏpreparation€of€the€case.€€Moreover,€the€ð ð302"€forms€were€prepared€prior€to€trial.€ÏIn€the€present€case,€the€F.B.I.€had€no€investigative€responsibility€and€noÏdocumentation€existed€at€all€until€three€months€after€trial.€€€No€amount€of€diligentÏsearching€could€have€uncovered€the€non„existent€forms.ÌÌà àIn€Tennessee,€a€prosecutorððs€duty€to€disclose€extends€not€only€toÏmaterial€in€his€or€her€immediate€custody,€but€also€to€statements€in€theÏpossession€of€the€police€that€are€normally€obtainable€by€the€exercise€of€dueÏdiligence.€€òòState€v.€Hicksóó,€618€S.W.2d€510,€514€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€€DueÏdiligence€is€generally€fulfilled€by€a€request€to€all€officers€participating€in€theÏinvestigation€or€preparation€of€the€case.€€òòIdóó.€The€two€agents€who€had€theÏinformation€were€conducting€an€independent€federal€investigation.€€AlthoughÏthe€F.B.I.€laboratory€tested€materials€for€the€Knoxville€Police€Department,€aÏrequest€to€the€laboratory€could€not€have€uncovered€the€knowledge€possessedÏonly€by€the€undercover€agents.ÌÌà àThe€state€must€disclose€any€information€that€it€knew€or€shouldÏhave€known€is€favorable€and€material€to€the€defense.€€òòState€v.€Craig€AllenÏLewisóó,€No.€01C01„9307„CC„00232,€slip€op.€at€26€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,ÍJan.€12,€1995).€€The€post„conviction€judge€found€that€the€District€AttorneyÏGeneral€first€learned€of€McClanahan€and€Allenððs€statements€in€January,€1986.€ÏThe€record€supports€this€finding.€€Nothing€indicates€that€either€the€police€officersÏwho€investigated€this€incident€or€the€prosecutors€who€tried€the€case€had€anyÏknowledge€of€an€independent€F.B.I.€investigation€into€car€theft€activity€in€EastÏTennessee.€€In€short,€the€state€had€no€reason€to€think€that€any€F.B.I.€agent€mightÏhave€information€that€was€potentially€material€and€exculpatory€to€HutchisonððsÏdefense.€€Moreover,€even€if€the€prosecutor€had€requested€copies€of€any€ð ð302"Ïforms€relating€to€the€incident,€none€would€have€been€forthcoming€because€theyÏwere€not€created€until€after€the€trial€was€complete.€€Despite€the€fact€that€twoÏF.B.I.€agents€possessed€information€that€may€have€changed€the€outcome€of€theÏtrial,€we€must€conclude€that€the€state€did€not€violate€the€rule€of€òòBrady€v.ÏMarylandóó€in€this€case.€€To€hold€otherwise€would€require€the€state€to€makeÏendless€inquiries€from€every€agency,€state€or€federal,€that€might€conceivablyÏhave€information€relating€to€local€criminal€investigations.€€ÌÌà àWe€recognize€and€share€the€concern€of€the€post„conviction€judgeÏthat€justice€be€done.€€€We€are€puzzled€by€the€nine„month€delay€betweenÏOððRearððs€letter€to€the€district€attorney€general€and€the€notification€provided€toÏHutchisonððs€attorney.€€œHowever,›€as€an€intermediate€appellate€court,€we€can€onlyÏrespond€to€the€issues€that€are€raised.€€On€these€facts,€the€state€did€not€violateÏthe€dictates€of€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó€by€failing€to€produce€McClanahanððs€andÍAllenððs€ð ð302"€forms€in€response€to€the€defendantsðð€discovery€request.× ƒC ××  ×ÌÌò òB.ó ó€€ò òSuppression€of€the€F.B.I.€laboratory€reportsó óÌà àAs€their€second€òòBradyóó€issue,€Hutchison€and€Harper€contend€thatÏthey€are€entitled€to€a€new€trial€based€upon€the€stateððs€failure€to€discloseÏexculpatory€F.B.I.€laboratory€reports.€The€record€contains€a€considerableÏamount€of€testimony€and€evidence€that€was€presented€at€the€hearing.€€However,Ïthere€are€factual€issues€in€dispute€about€which€the€evidence€is€contradictoryÏand€inconclusive.œ× ƒD ××  ×›€€€Since€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€was€based€upon€the€first€òòBradyóóÍissue,€the€trial€court€made€no€factual€findings€concerning€this€second€òòBradyóóÏissue€or€the€issue€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Factual€issues€raised€byÏthe€evidence€must€be€resolved€by€the€trial€court€€and€then€included€inÏappropriate€findings€of€fact.€€òòGeorge€Tate€v.€Stateóó,€No.€02C01„9108„CR„00170,Íslip€op.€at€6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€May€20,€1992)€€.€€It€is€the€duty€of€the€trialÏcourt€to€weigh€and€evaluate€the€evidence,€to€resolve€conflicts€in€the€testimony,Ïand€to€determine€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2dÏ752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€It€is€inappropriate€for€this€court€to€determineÏcontested€factual€issues€from€the€printed€record.€€òòJohnny€Eugene€Johnson€v.ÏStateóó,€€No.€01C01„9508„CC„00247,€€slip€op.€at€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,ÏOct.€10,€1996),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1997).€€ÌÌà àThe€petitioners€claim€that€the€prosecution€did€not€provide€the€F.B.I.Ïreports€despite€their€motions€for€discovery.× ƒE ××  ×€€The€state€contends€that€theÏpetitioners€had€these€reports€prior€to€the€first€trial.€€The€trial€court€and€not€thisÏcourt€must€resolve€the€conflicting€evidence,€determine€whether€the€stateÏwithheld€the€reports,€and€when€the€defense€actually€received€copies€of€them.€€ÏAt€that€point,€the€trial€court€will€be€able€to€determine€whether€Harper's€post„conviction€petition€meets€the€criteria€set€forth€in€òòSands€v.€Stateóó,€903€S.W.2d€297Ï(Tenn.€1995).€€With€respect€to€Hutchison's€petitions,€the€trial€court€should€alsoÏmake€findings€resolving€Hutchison's€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€ÏBased€on€these€findings,€the€post„conviction€court€may€then€determine€whetherÍto€grant€or€deny€the€petitions€for€relief.€€œ›à àWe€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt€and€remand€the€case€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.ÌÓÓà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCURWOOD€WITT,€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€Judge