In the first instance, police directed state's witness to obtain a drug test at their doctor. A urine test was performed at a hospital with a negative test result. While a positive test result would have supported the state's case, the negative result tends to negate the defendant's guilt. Nothing in the initial discovery mentioned anything about the drug test, but the defendant was aware of it's existence through credible gossip. Defendant informed Public Defender of it's existence and assumed it would be included in discovery. Only discovery was a couple of generic arrest forms with brief witness statements to police that came with the charging information that was provided at the initial hearing. Public Defender asked DA about the drug test and DA stated they weren't aware of any. At one point, the Public Defender doubted it's existence. After considerable investigation (by me), where the test was performed was established and Public Defender issued a subpoena to the hospital for the records which they ultimately produced. All of this significantly delayed evaluating the test details for trial preparation.