How is the laboratory treated under Brady purposes according to case law?

Under the Brady v. Maryland principles, the laboratory is treated as part of the prosecution because the prosecution has an obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence, which can include information generated by forensic laboratories. This means that any findings or evidence produced by the laboratory that might be favorable to the defendant or could undermine the prosecution's case must be disclosed.

The rationale is that the prosecution holds the responsibility for ensuring a just trial, which extends to all evidence, including that which is generated by external laboratories. This places the laboratory's findings within the broader scope of the prosecution's case, reinforcing the idea that they are not viewed as separate entities but rather as integral components of the prosecutorial duty to disclose all pertinent information. In essence, the prosecution cannot compartmentalize the laboratory's role; its output is directly tied to the prosecution's obligation to uphold fairness in the judicial process.

By contrast, the other views portray the laboratory in ways that do not align with the obligations set forth in Brady. Viewing the laboratory as an independent entity or as a neutral party would diminish the prosecution's responsibility to disclose critical findings, while seeing it as non-essential contradicts the significant role forensic evidence plays in many cases.