In People v. Zambrano (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1082, the defendant called as mitigating character witnesses individuals who knew him as an adult, but he did not present the testimony of any family members. (Zambrano, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1173.) The prosecutor noted that omission in closing argument, arguing, "'I ask you, who really knows someone, acquaintances or family, friends, brothers and sisters, the people you grew up with in your youth? They really know you; and they were not called, ladies and gentlemen. You did not hear from them. You have to ask yourself what that means and why that was.'" (Ibid.) The California Supreme Court ruled that this was a permissible comment on the failure to call logical witnesses. (Id. at pp. 1173-1174.) The California Supreme Court noted that this disclosure obligation "is not limited to evidence the prosecutor's office itself actually knows of or possesses, but includes 'evidence known to the others acting on the government's behalf in the case, including the police." (Id. at p. 1132.) The Zambrano court also commented that "materiality includes consideration of the effect of the nondisclosure on defense investigations and trial strategies." (Id. at pp. 1132-1133.) The court reiterated the conclusion drawn from Kyles v. Whitley (1995) 514 U.S. 419, 435, that "because a constitutional violation occurs only if the suppressed evidence was material . . . , a finding that Brady was not satisfied is reversible without need for further harmless-error review." (Zambrano, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1133) The Supreme Court in Zambrano recognized, as this court did in Abatti, that a prosecutor's constitutional duty under Brady to disclose exculpatory evidence is independent of the prosecution's disclosure duties under the reciprocal discovery statute ( 1054.1), which apply even without a request by the defendant. (Zambrano, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1133; Abatti, supra, 112 Cal.App.4th at p. 53.) Also, where it is determined that the matter not disclosed was not material for purposes of Brady, it may nevertheless constitute a failure to disclose under the reciprocal discovery statute, in which case any violation is reviewed under the harmless error standard set forth in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836. (Zambrano, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1135, fn. 13.)