In May of this year, an incredibly high-stakes case began arguments in Los Angeles—a case that will impact the way criminal law operates in the United States' largest county. The case revolves around the 1963 Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland. Our blog has previously touched on the subject of "Brady material": evidence that is relevant to a defendant's defense or acquittal. In 1963, the Supreme Court ruled that it is illegal to keep Brady material from the defendant's possession—even if the prosecution was unaware of it at the time!
Making the prosecutor responsible for all unknown and known Brady material ensures that prosecutors conduct thorough discovery and disclose all relevant evidence to the defendant (when applicable). A later case (Kyles v. Whitley) found that the police are part of the "prosecution" team—meaning it is also illegal for the police to withhold evidence from the prosecutor that might help or acquit the defendant.
Disclosure of Brady material is a serious issue. The Supreme Court considers Brady violations a breach of due process rights, and the finding of a violation entitles the defendant to a new trial.
The Los Angeles case asks the question: how much are the police required to disclose? The case between Jim McDonnell and the Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs seeks to answer it.
Here's what happened:
Sheriff Jim McDonnell created a list of 300 deputy sheriffs who had serious misconduct on their record. He focused on violations that would damage an officer's credibility and ability to offer testimony in court—disciplinary issues such as accepting bribes, evidence tampering, lying, falsifying records, and obstructing an investigation. The result was a Brady list: a list of officers whose personnel files could be considered relevant to a defendant's acquittal or the defense of their account. McDonnell then moved to provide the list to the District Attorney's office.
The ALADS immediately acted to prevent him from doing so, citing confidentiality rules applying to police personnel files. These statues are known as Pitchess procedures, which prohibits prosecutors from receiving such evidence—even if they are Brady material. Deputy DA Jason Lustig, the attorney in charge of complying with discovery rules, revealed that the office's official policy is to refrain from seeking Brady material from personnel files.
He even added that prosecutors are instructed to decline relevant evidence from officers' files unless the offending officer gives his or her permission. This statement from Lustig might have been too far for the public to hear—even the LA District Attorney, Jackie Lacey, distanced herself from the statement afterward.
It's worth mentioning that Pitchess procedures have a narrower scope then the Brady rule—Pitchess demands that police personnel files remain private for 5 years, while Brady materials have no time limits. In addition, a prosecutor's duty to seek and promote justice supersedes any administrative rules about how police files are handled. While how the court decides on the case will certainly involve many factors, the fundamental duty of the prosecutor should eventually be the deciding factor.
Even if you don't live in California, the result of the McDonnell case may have repercussions in the administration of criminal justice across the country. Visit this blog for any updates.
