context: Defendant's Motion-I at 8. Mr. Douglas' argument makes an unwarranted logical leap from "innocuous" to "exculpatory"; the two words are not synonymous. Although the audiotape does not incriminate Mr. Douglas, it contains nothing which is favorable to or would exculpate him, as Brady requires.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 473 U.S. 667, 677
citation_a.parenthetical: interpreting "exculpatory evidence" as that which, if suppressed, would deprive the defendant of a fair trial
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 677, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3381, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) (interpreting "exculpatory evidence" as that which, if suppressed, would deprive the defendant of a fair trial).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 794 F.Supp. 520, 520-21
citation_b.parenthetical: concluding that an audiotape which only corroborated witness' testimony did not automatically exculpate the defendant
citation_b.sentence: See also D’Ottavio v. United States, 794 F.Supp. 520, 520-21 (S.D.N.Y.1992) (concluding that an audiotape which only corroborated witness’ testimony did not automatically exculpate the defendant).