Re: Disciplinary Matters
Duty of Disclosure
The criminal procedure revolution commenced in the 1960s. During this era, the rights of criminal defendants were afforded greater substantive and procedural protections. A string of Supreme Court cases established affirmative duties of government officials, particularly prosecutors, to disclose information to the defense. Beginning in Brady v. Maryland, the Prosecutor was held to have a duty to the defense to disclose material information that may have serve to negate a defendant’s guilt (Brady v. Maryland, 1963). The underlying implication of Brady is that it requires prosecutors to inform defendants if government officials lied in previous testimony. Therefore, if an officer is a witness to a crime or is otherwise called to testify, and his or her testify is falsified or untruthful, the prosecutor has an affirmative duty to disclose this information to the defense (Judge, 2005).
But prosecutorial disclosure of information is not always required under the Brady framework. The Prosecutor is only required to disclose that information which tends to lead to reasonable doubt about a defendant’s guilt (United States v. Agurs, 1976). Therefore, the duty of disclosure placed on government officials does not extend to any and all possible evidence that could be beneficial to the defense. The evidence in question must be of the type that could have an impact on a jury’s verdict of guilt or innocence (United States v. Agurs, 1976). The Supreme Court in United States v. Agurs implicitly recognized that while a Prosecutor has a fundamental duty to of fairness to the opposing side, which requires disclosure of information in certain cases, the Prosecutor’s responsibility is to first and foremost prosecute cases as a zealous advocate for the people and the government. The duty of disclosure under Brady, in turn, does not stretch so far as to require the Prosecutor to turn over all evidence that could be helpful to the defense.
In addition to having a duty to disclose certain information to the defense, the Prosecutor must also disclose information to the jury that could have a substantial impact on the jury’s assessment of witness credibility. In the Giglio v. Untetd States, the Prosecutor agreed to not bring charges against a witness in exchange for the witness to testify during trial against the defendant (Giglio v. United States, 1972). The Prosecutor never told the jury about the deal that the government and the witness had entered into (Giglio v. United States, 1972). The Supreme Court held that the Prosecutor had a duty to inform the jury of the agreement because it was material evidence (Giglio v. United States, 1972). The failure of the Prosecutor to inform the jury of such material evidence as the agreement struck for the witness’s testimony denied the defendant due process and the Court subsequently ordered that the defendant be given a new trial (Giglio v. United States, 1972).
While Brady only required that the Prosecutor disclose material evidence that tends to negate a defendant’s guilt, recently, the Supreme Court has seemed to broaden the Prosecutor’s duty of disclosure. In Kyles v. Whitley, police failed to disclose to the defendant that a police informant had given inconsistent statements that were potentially exculpatory to the defendant (Kyles v. Whitley, 1995). The Supreme Court held that the Prosecutor had an affirmative duty to disclose such evidence that was favorable to the defense (Kyles v. Whitley, 1995). Because a reasonable jury could have found the defendant no guilty if the exculpatory evidence had been disclosed, the Supreme Court ordered that a new trial be given to the defendant (Kyles v. Whitley, 1995).
Disciplinary Proceedings
When a very officer empowered to uphold the laws is found to have lied or falsified information, it undermines the reliability and credibility of the entire legal system. The credibility and truthfulness of officers is essential in the law enforcement function (Serpas and Hagar, 2010). Important Supreme Court decisions regarding the duty of disclosure suggest that untruthful conduct and actions of police officers can be extremely damaging in the day-to-day effectiveness of policing (Serpas and Hagar, 2010).
In this case, the officer used a department computer to search pornographic websites, which qualifies as serious misconduct and misuse of official police resources. While incidents of misconduct can often be handled internally, when the officer was confronted, the officer knowingly lied and denied any knowledge of the incident. A further investigation revealed that the officer’s password and login were used to access the materials and the officer later admitted to the wrongdoing once the evidence proved that he was the responsible party.
Because the officer has been with the organization for 15 years and his only blemish is being involved in a traffic accident 10 years ago, I would recommend that the officer be retained. The Police Department should take dishonesty very seriously and appropriate disciplinary action must be taken against the officer. Other police departments have department-wide policies regarding truthfulness, falsifying reports, withholding of information, and failure to report misconduct (Serpas and Hagar, 2010). Because this was a first-time incident of dishonesty on the officer’s part, I would recommend that the officer not be terminated at this time. Appropriate disciplinary action would be suspension, either with or without pay, or mandated to take an ethics course.
References
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83. Supreme Court of the US (1963). Web. 23 Mar. 2016.
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150. Supreme Court of the US (1972). Web. 23 Mar. 2016.
Judge, Lisa A. “Disclosing Officer Untruthfulness to the Defense: Is a Liars Squad Coming to
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419. Supreme Court of the US (1995). Web. 23 Mar. 2016.
Serpas, R. and Hagar, M. “The Untruthful Employee: Is Termination the Only Response?” The
Police Chief (2010). Web. 23 Mar. 2016.
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97. Supreme Court of the US (1976). Web. 23 Mar. 2016.
