BRADY GIGLIO LAWS- What are they? What is their impact?

Recently we have found ourselves facing a situation in which a law enforcement officer in one of our counties described a situation in court which could affect the outcome of the case, which was not truthful, a violation of Brady Giglio Laws. Law enforcement officers and prosecutors are understandably held to a higher standard. The public expects nothing but utmost integrity from law enforcement officials. So, it is not surprising when a local prosecutor or a law enforcement officer gets into trouble, it gets more media attention than it would ordinarily receive if it involved someone who has not been entrusted with upholding the law. While picking up criminal charges might affect someone’s job, lacking integrity during an investigation or during the prosecution of a case can have bigger consequences beyond the person’s job.

 A 1963 Supreme Court case, Brady v. Maryland, mandates that the prosecution disclose any evidence favorable to the defendant that is material to either guilt or punishment to prevent miscarriages of justice and ensure all relevant evidence is available to the defense. The Supreme Court later expanded on the Brady ruling in 1972 in Giglio v. United States holding that any information that could challenge a witness’ credibility must be disclosed to the defense as well.

This Supreme Court ruling spawned the creation of a list in the law enforcement community, which has become known as the Giglio List. When a law enforcement officer has been found to be untruthful, the prosecution must inform the defense in any case in which that law enforcement officer is a witness, and at a minimum, the officer will have to answer those past indiscretions during cross examinations during every subsequent trial.

Gratefully, in our district it is rare to find a law enforcement officer to be untruthful. However, since in one of our district’s counties, a law enforcement official was found by a Court to have been untruthful in an affidavit for a warrant the case was dismissed by the Court and my office now must review every case in which that officer is a witness,  to determine whether these cases have  been tainted because of the officer’s lack of integrity to such an extent that they too must be dismissed.

The situation we face was particularly egregious and potentially had significant consequences not only for one case but for all cases (as mentioned above) this officer engaged in, and the officer’s future employment. Once an officer makes the Giglio list, S/He can never be removed from the list. If the officer continues a career in law enforcement, the past indiscretion must be disclosed, and the officer will have to respond to it in every case the officer is involved in, and the district attorney then has to make a decision whether every case that officer is a witness in is prosecutable based on officer’s lack of integrity for that one particular case.

Another challenge is determining what constitutes material evidence. The subjective nature of this standard can lead to disputes over whether certain evidence should have been disclosed. The Courts must then assess whether the nondisclosure of evidence would have had an influence on the outcome of the trial.

In instances where prosecutors have failed to disclose Brady or Giglio material, either intentionally or inadvertently, such misconduct can result in wrongful convictions and undermine public trust in the legal system. In my office, prosecutorial misconduct is ground for immediate dismissal. The Brady and Giglio laws play a crucial role in safeguarding the rights of defendants and ensuring the integrity of the criminal justice system. By requiring the disclosure of exculpatory and impeaching evidence, these laws help prevent wrongful convictions and promote transparency in legal proceedings.

Since taking office, ongoing education, oversight, and accountability have been a priority. The effective implementation of these rules depends on the diligence and integrity of all legal practitioners.