is too sparse to shed any light on whether the judge was in fact compelling the Commonwealth to make an inquiry of the alleged victims.* Based on the record before us, we can conclude only that the judge allowed the defendant’s request to the extent that it requires the Commonwealth to provide information in its possession. We cannot conclude, because the record is not sufficient on the point, that the judge was ordering the Commonwealth to do anything more. The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law. Janis DiLoreto Noble, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Judgment affirmed. 1 It is questionable whether such an order, if that is what the judge intended, would comport with the holding in Commonwealth v. Beal, 429 Mass. 530,531 (1999) (<HOLDING>), although we need not resolve that question
holding prosecutor has affirmative duty to disclose material exculpatory evidence holding that the prosecution must disclose to the defense all exculpatory evidence known to the state or in its possession recognizing that while prosecution has duty to disclose exculpatory information in its or its agents possession duty does not require making defensedirected inquiries of independent witnesses including complainants holding the government has an affirmative duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant holding that erisas duty of loyalty creates a duty to disclose certain information to beneficiaries