Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands v. William C. Campbell, II

Opinion by Judge KLEINFELD; Dissent by Judge TROTT.

This ease involves issues of our appellate jurisdiction over cases from the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Facts

Campbell was prosecuted on a citation for drunk driving. Police had come to arrest a man named Isla. According to Campbell, the two police officers who arrested Isla asked Campbell to follow them in his car, so that he could drive another witness back home. A third officer pulled Campbell over and cited him.

His lawyer promptly requested the names of the two officers who arrested Isla, and the Isla police report. The prosecutor refused throughout the pretrial period to make these disclosures. The superior court had ordered the prosecution “to provide discovery” which “shall, at a minimum, include the evidence that the prosecution intends to present in its case-in-ehief at trial.”

*548 Shortly before trial, Campbell moved that the government “be precluded from offering any evidence or testimony concerning the manner in which Mr. Campbell was driving as well as his demeanor.” The ground was the government’s refusal to accede to the discovery demands. The defense theory was that…

Dissenting:

I have no quarrel with the result reached by my colleagues, but I would have dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In my judgment, we have no Constitutional claim before us that has attained the ripeness required for adjudication. Neither the trial court nor the Supreme Court of the CNMI has inflicted any Constitutional damage on Mr. Campbell, none. The trial court ruled in his favor. The appeal from that ruling was not taken by Campbell but by the government. The Supreme Court simply said to the trial court, “You must look at the evidence to see if it is exculpatory or material before you dismiss the case.” There is not a scintilla of evidence in this record at this point showing a Brady violation has occurred. The prosecution claims the disputed evidence is not exculpatory. No judge has ever reviewed the evidence to see if the Brady claim has any merit.

*550 The dismissal was for a violation of a discovery order, not for failure to provide Brady material to the defense. Brady is at best in the starting gate, not on the track. All we end up reviewing is the equivalent of an interlocutory decree from the CNMI Supreme Court telling a trial judge he must…

42 F.3d 546 COMMONWEALTH OF the NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William C. CAMPBELL, II, Defendant-Appellant. No. 93-16669. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Oct. 31, 1994 * . Decided Dec. 6, 1994. William C. Campbell, II, in pro per. Charles R. Rotbart, Asst. Atty. Gen., Saipan, CM, for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Northern Mariana Islands. Before: BROWNING, TROTT and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge KLEINFELD; Dissent by Judge TROTT. KLEINFELD, Circuit Judge: 1 This case involves issues of our appellate jurisdiction over cases from the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Facts 2 Campbell was prosecuted on a citation for drunk driving. Police had come to arrest a man named Isla. According to Campbell, the two police officers who arrested Isla asked Campbell to follow them in his car, so that he could drive another witness back home. A third officer pulled Campbell over and cited him. 3 His lawyer promptly requested the names of the two officers who arrested Isla, and the Isla police report. The prosecutor refused throughout the pretrial period to make these disclosures.…