We think it probable that original trial counsel did not know that Gates was the suspicious person seen by witnesses in the area. Clearly, counsel did not know of Schweer’s contact with a person fitting Gates’ description in the nights preceding Schweer’s murder, including the fact that Schweer caught this individual trying to break into a truck. We conclude Harrington did not have the “essential facts” of the police reports so as to allow the defense to wholly take advantage of this evidence. As the Nevada Supreme Court stated under similar circumstances, “[0]nly access to the documents themselves would have provided the range and detail of information necessary to fully understand the implications of the police investigation.” Mazzan v. Warden, 116 Nev. 48, 993 P.2d 25, 37 (2000) (<HOLDING>); see also Wilson v. State, - So.2d -, -, 2002
holding that during investigatory stop police may transport seized property to another location holding that record must show that evidence is exculpatory for defendant to establish brady violation holding oral disclosure of identity of another suspect was not sufficient to avoid brady violation for failing to produce police investigatory reports holding that a brady violation is waived by guilty plea holding that the alleged brady material was merely cumulative to the significant impeachment that already occurred during trial so there was no prejudice for a brady violation