and Slinger’s grand jury transcript should have been promptly produced in discovery pursuant to the June 26, 1997 Order. See United States v. Salemme, 978 F.Supp. 386, 387-88 & n. 5 (D.Mass.1997). That Order stated, in part, that the government was required to produce to counsel for each defendant, by July 18,1997: c) Any document or record that tends to show that Department of Justice and/or FBI regulations or guidelines were, in any way, not complied with concerning Flemmi and/or Bulger. The documents and records covered by this subparagraph include, but are not limited to, materials indicating that: (i) re quired records were not prepared or maintained; ... (iv) established procedures for seeking authorization or guidance concerning the participation of an informa (D.Colo.1989) (<HOLDING>). Id. at n. 5. Nevertheless, although the
recognizing that a criminal defendants right to a fair trial is fundamental holding that deliberate failure to prepare dea 6 reports of witness interviews constituted a violation of the duty to preserve evidence that deprived defendant of right to a fair trial recognizing the right of a defendant to comment upon the failure of the state to produce evidence holding that in order to state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to call a witness to testify the claimant must allege 1 the identity of the potential witness 2 that the witness was available to testify at trial 3 the substance of the witnesss testimony and 4 an explanation of how the omission of the testimony prejudiced the case holding that consequence of deliberate violation of parental notification statute is suppression of statements made by defendant