Supreme Court of Florida June 30, 2011, Nos. SC08-146, SC08-2486 (Pittman v. State)

PARIENTE, J.,

concurring in result.

I concur in result for two reasons. The first reason is that the majority could be read to approve of the trial court’s misstatements of the law — statements that there is a due diligence requirement in Brady and statements that appear to emphasize that the prosecutor did not have knowledge of notes in the possession of police in denying Pittman’s Brady claims.