That is a very good question. I suspect that some of it, if not maybe much of it, would not or could not be available to them.
Our system developed over a long period. I became a crown attorney about 47 years ago, and when I first became a crown attorney, we disclosed nothing--nothing. The indictment or the information was there, and that was it. Gradually that changed, and it was a change for the better. There's no question about it.
Sure, we're having what I suppose are hard to call growing pains, because Stinchcombe was 1990, I believe, but I don't think there'd be as many problems with Stinchcombe today as there were maybe even five or ten years ago. There has to be some control in determining relevance, and the public prosecution people earlier mentioned that, but if you think it's relevant, then produce it.
The big problem is that it's not just the production, but the fact that investigations today are so much more sophisticated than they were in my day. I prosecuted dozens of murder trials, none of which ever went more than a week, but the evidence was simple and straightforward. There'd be little, if any, forensic evidence, other than what came from the pathologist. There just wasn't all the investigative material produced then that is produced today.