Is a Liar’s Squad Coming to Your Town?
The general precedence is that the prosecution has a duty and responsibility to disclose to the defense, any evidence that would favor the defense (Abel, 2015). Following on some of the biblical view on accusation, as would have been noted by the famous saying of the Biblical Jesus, “…let he who has no sin…”1, the rule of equity demands that he who comes to equity must do so with clean hands. As most jury based cases usually, to a large extent, involve a question of equity on the part of the juror’s decision making, it therefore follows that the witnesses who testify to the jury must, within reasonable standards, be without fault (Abel, 2015). More often than not, and due to legal technicality motions, the credibility of a witness would action a mistrial if such witness is deemed unfit to provide a credible testimony.
Despite the fact that this is usually beneficial where the defendant was in fact innocent, the occurrence of the guilty walking free on account of legal technicalities raises the need for testifying officers to be, in all reasonable standards, free of fault (Chin, Wells, 2012). Where this is not possible, it is noted that it is the duty and responsibility of the prosecutor to inform the defense of such information as this would decrease the credibility of the officer and thus work as evidence in favor of the defense. However, it is worth noting that such disclosure evidence can only be deemed necessary if it is material to guilt or imprisonment. Materiality of evidence is usually at the discretion of the prosecution, that is, it is upon the prosecution to determine whether the evidence it so holds would favor the defense in a material way. In the following topical paragraph, the paper provides case briefs for cases where the materiality of evidence and the disclosure of evidence were warranted as it favored the defense arguments.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Case Briefs
In Brady v. Maryland (1963), the facts of the case being; Brady and Bobit were convicted of murder separately. Brady admitted to participating and inferred that Bobit committed the actual murder. Brady’s counsel had requested extrajudicial statements made by Bobit prior to the trial but prosecution withheld a previous confession of the murder by Bobit. Court of Appeal held that suppression of the confession as evidence was violation of due process as it denied the prosecution due process of law. The rationale of the Court of Appeal was that, conviction that is obtained through pretense of trial is a means used to deprive the defendant of liberty through deliberate deception of the court.
Similarly, in Giglio v. United States (1972) , the facts of the case being Giglio was accused of forging money orders, and a key government witness who was a co-conspirator had been promised leniency by a government official if he testified against Giglio. An appeal motion was filed based on denial to access to the witness evidentiary information. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the case stating that materiality of evidence should be considered when deciding whether withheld evidence leads to an error in constitution.
Other instances where the police withheld evidentiary information about the credibility of witnesses were in United States v. Agurs (1976), United States v. Bagley (1985), and Kyles v. Whitley (1995). In all these cases, the fact was the evidence withheld was material and trials were reversed and remanded. This was done in line with the Brady precedence where withholding of evidentiary information served to deny the defense their constitutional right to a fair trial and it is the duty of the prosecution to provide any evidence that would be in favor of the defense whether or not the defense has asked for the evidence to be disclosed.
Application of the Case Laws to the Situation
Disclosure of information . The general rule is that any evidentiary information that may be in favor of the defense should be disclosed to the defense counsel (Russell, 2014). The falsification of information by the officer and the infringement of organizational regulations are to large extent exculpatory in cases where the case against the defense is solely based on the ability of the witness to make true and fair statements regarding the case. Under the prosecution disclosure rules and ethics, the burden to discover Brady material and to disclose such material to the defendant rests in the prosecution team. The police department is under no legal obligation to willingly disclose the personnel file. Moreover, legally, personnel files are usually confidential documents that can be accessed only by the owner of the file and an employer of the file owner. It therefore follows that in order to protect the reputation of the officer as well as his livelihood, disclosure should not necessarily be made unless upon request
Materiality of Evidentiary Information . The Brady precedence dictates that for evidence to be termed material, it should be exculpatory in that it should either exonerate the defendant or it should be able to impeach a key witness (Abel, 2015). In light of this understanding, the personnel files containing the officer’s misconduct would therefore be presentable as exculpatory evidence and should be disclosed to the defendant. The personnel file evidence serves as impeaching evidence against the officer. This therefore means that government would not be able to use him as a witness even in instances where he had personally made an arrest which makes it difficult to retain him in active duty. The officer’s untruthfulness posses a credibility issue to the officer as a witness. With statistics such as 40% of Los Angeles county residents believing that police officers commonly lie on the witness stand (Chin, Wells, 2012 ), it follows prudence that the slightest information that reduces the credibility of a police officer as a witness is disclosed to the defense.
Resolution and Conclusion
Despite the provisions of the Brady precedence, search for Brady material in police personnel files has been applied differently in different states (Abel, 2015). It is also important to note that the psychological implications of disclosing the particulars of the officer’s personnel file are much more detrimental to the officer in question. It follows civil responsibility that impeaching evidence against any public officer should be directly related to the particular case for it to be material. The materiality of evidence should be based on the character of the offender and not the character of the prosecutor or members of the prosecutor’s team as was noted in Giglio v. United States (1972.
The preference to the materiality of evidence as opposed to the nature of it or the facts to which it presents should be a principle followed in the application of the Brady principle to disclosure of police personnel records (Joy, McMunigal, 2015). Ethical implications also present in the disclosure of police personnel files. The untruthfulness of an officer in an office setting should not be viewed as their inability to perform duties (Russell, 2014). More ethical reasons surface where the officer has a virtually clean record and the misconduct he was accused of that forced him to lie was as a result of fear of the impact it would have had on his record.
In conclusion, the officer’s misconduct was a first time offence of its nature. The action taken should be disciplinary action and a follow up warning letter. The officer should also be taken off patrol duty. This would reduce the chances of the officer being witness to an arrest where he would be required to take the stand as a witness (Russell, 2014). In overall, the Brady precedence has had conflicting reception by the police department due to the extent of its application and therefore, can lead to the acquittal of guilty criminals. Perhaps, in its setting of the precedence, the court should have considered the principles expounded by the biblical Paul in his epistle to the Roman church, “…for all have sinned…” (Romans 3:23)
References
Abel, J. (2015). Brady's blind spot: impeachment evidence in police personnel files and the battle splitting the prosecution team.
Chin, G. J., & Wells, S. C. (2012). Blue Wall of Silence as Evidence of Bias and Motive to Lie: A New Approach to Police Perjury, The. U. Pitt. L. Rev. , 59 , 233.
Joy, P. A., & McMunigal, K. C. (2015). The Ethics of Prosecutorial Disclosure.
Russell, C. A. (2014). When Justice Is Done: Expanding a Defendant's Right to the Disclosure of Exculpatory Evidence on the 51st Anniversary of Brady v. Maryland. Howard LJ , 58 , 237.
