officers involved had a history of using excessive force. The absence of an adequate showing of materiality distinguishes this case from March v. State, where the defendant demonstrated that the investigating officer was under investigation for giving favorable treatment to an acquaintance. The Alaska courts have affirmed trial court orders denying similar requests where the defendant failed to make a sufficient showing that the requested information was material to the defense case. I believe that Judge Miller's ruling is supported by the record and the language of the applicable rule. I conclude that he did not commit an abuse of discretion. 1 . See Schmid v. State, 615 P.2d 565, 571 (Alaska 1980) (quoting People v. Garcia, 67 Cal.2d 830, 64 Cal.Rptr. 110, 434 P.2d 366, 370 (1967) (<HOLDING>)); Gunnerud v. State, 611 P.2d 69, 72 (Alaska
holding where the plaintiff presented evidence which demonstrates that the terms alleged by the defendants to be indefinite were in fact sufficiently well delineated to all parties the entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the defendants was inappropriate despite the fact that the defendants contested the plaintiffs evidence concerning the manner in which the relevant contractual language should be construed holding that an informants identity does not need to be disclosed unless the defendant demonstrates a reasonable possibility that the anonymous informant could give evidence on the issue of guilt or innocence which might result in the defendants exoneration holding a consequence instruction is not necessary because the consequences of the verdict have no bearing upon the guilt or innocence of the defendant holding that even the admission of a coerced confession may be harmless error and noting that  the central purpose of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendants guilt or innocence  holding that the rule in pennsylvania is that reference to a lie detector test or the result thereof which raises inferences concerning the guilt or innocence of a defendant is inadmissible