Disclosing Officer Untruthfulness to the Defense
Disclosing Officer Untruthfulness to the Defense: Is a Liar’s Squad Coming to Your Town?
No matter the career path a person chooses at some point they will have to tackle a moral
and ethical challenge that they will have to decide on. Some occupations will require some to
make choices that will have a greater impact. Take, for instance the situation of a Take, for
instance, the situation of a cashier who discovers extra funds at the conclusion of their shift.
They face the decision of whether to report the surplus or retain it. Regardless of their choice,
they may face commendation or termination. Similarly, law enforcement officers confront moral
and ethical dilemmas on a regular basis. However, unlike many professions, the repercussions of
their decisions can extend far beyond personal consequences, potentially impacting their
department and even garnering national attention. This essay will delve into the ethical
quandaries faced by officers, with a particular focus on a hypothetical scenario where I assume
the role of a Police Chief tasked with addressing the misstep of a 15-year veteran officer.
Furthermore, I will analyze various Supreme Court cases involving the handling of information,
considering their constitutional implications and how they may relate to the scenario.
Being a law enforcement officer is not an easy task, it takes a lot. It often feels as though
the world is targeting you for something that occurred across the country. It is not a task that
anyone can do, it takes a lot and it puts a toll not only on your friends and family. It’s a heavy
price and some are willing to pay that price while some are not, birthdays and anniversaries will
be missed, promises will be broken in the dedication to serving your community. “Police officers
generally pledge an oath upon graduation from an academy, and many police agencies have
adopted a code of ethics.” (Pollock, 2018) That oath is not something that should be taken
2
Disclosing Officer Untruthfulness to the Defense
lightly, you have now agreed that will be able to handle the pressure of being held to an hire
standard and will be able to take the criticism and all the other stuff that comes with being law
enforcement. You must understand that you are required and trusted that you will always be
truthful in police reports and when testifying in court. As a police office the consequences for
lying are very server, an officer can receive an Giglio letter or Braddy letter which is essentially
a document stating an officer word is no credible and thus is not allowed to testify. (Welty, 2023)
Proverbs 19:9 states, "A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who speaks lies shall
perish".” (Proverbs 19:9). When a police officer is caught lying, the consequences can be severe,
ranging from losing their job to even facing jail time. Once the public loses faith in an officer's
honesty, it undermines their credibility, sometimes to the point where they can't even testify in
court cases anymore.
Looking at the scenario, I am responding as if I am the Chief of Police for a municipality.
As the Chief my role is to oversee the entirety of the department and ensure that everything is
running as it should and being the direct point of communication between the department and the
mayor and other city officials. I was informed by my Deputy Chief that one of our officers is
being investigated for the misuse of department equipment, specifically the computer system. I
was informed that an investigation was ongoing, the allegation was that he was going to
pornographic sites on agency computers. When confronted with this initially he denied all
claims, claimed he was innocent of the wrongdoing. Though, after he was confronted by the
internal affairs investigator, he admitted his wrongdoing and stated he would never do it again.
Looking at this file, I see that he has a relatively clean record except for an traffic accident ten
years ago.
Taking his history with the agency into account, in this case an officer with a record of
3
Disclosing Officer Untruthfulness to the Defense
anything short of this would be let go from the agency but I have decided I will impose
disciplinary action on him. Before going into detail about what action will be taken, I would like
to take some time to explain my decision. His track record is something to be commended, with
a fifteen-year stent with the agency and having only one incident that being ten years ago is
impressive. Keeping a clean record for ten years shows me that he learned from his mistake and
grew, he did not become bitter and start causing more problems, he understood the corrective
measures and has not made the same mistake again. Also, with the daily struggles of being law
enforcement officer’s find many different coping mechanisms to try and deal with the thoughts
and sleepless nights. I believe it would be wrong of me to think that addiction is not something
that could be at play here, less an addiction that possibly stemmed from the stressor of the job.
With that said this agency nor do I show favoritism and I must show to fellow officers that lying
will not be tolerated in this department and will receive disciplinary actions for doing so. The
officer will receive a letter of disciplinary action in his file, also will be on suspension for a shift
rotation, meaning if he was to work 2 days on and 2 days off then 3 days on this week, he will
not be working those days until the next rotation when it resets. Upon returning to work will be
on admin duty, while on admin duty the officer will be submitted to an addiction training course
and a computer safety class, both must be completed before the officer can be considered to
return to normal duty.
In Brady v. Maryland (1963), the defendant, John Brady, was convicted of murder along
with his accomplice. However, during the trial, it became evident that the prosecution had failed
to disclose crucial evidence to Brady's defense team. This evidence included statements made by
his accomplice that could have potentially exonerated Brady or reduced his sentence. The
Supreme Court's decision in this case established the now-famous "Brady rule," which mandates
4
Disclosing Officer Untruthfulness to the Defense
that prosecutors must disclose any evidence that is favorable to the defendant and material to
either guilt or punishment. The Court held that the suppression of such evidence by the
prosecution violated Brady's constitutional right to due process under the Fourteenth
Amendment. This ruling has had a profound impact on the criminal justice system, emphasizing
the importance of fairness and transparency in criminal trials. It underscores the principle that
defendants are entitled to a fair trial and access to all relevant evidence that could affect the
outcome of their case.
The U.S. Supreme Court has tackled several important aspects of fairness in criminal trials
through landmark cases over the years. These cases have emphasized the significance of
transparency and fairness in the legal process, ensuring that defendants have access to all
relevant information to mount a proper defense.
In Giglio v. United States (1972), the Court addressed the issue of a prosecution witness who had
made a deal to testify against the defendant in exchange for leniency. However, this information
was not disclosed to the defense team during the trial. The Court's ruling stated that prosecutors
must disclose any agreements or promises made to witnesses that could affect their testimony
and undermine the defendant's right to a fair trial. This principle was extended to include
evidence that could undermine the credibility of government witnesses, ensuring that defendants
have access to all relevant information.
In United States v. Agurs (1976), the Court clarified that prosecutors must disclose all evidence
favorable to the defense, even if not specifically requested. This extends to evidence that could
likely change the trial's outcome, regardless of whether the defense requests it. The ruling
highlighted the importance of fairness and transparency in the legal process, ensuring that
5
Disclosing Officer Untruthfulness to the Defense
defendants have access to all relevant information to mount a proper defense.
In Kyles v. Whitley (1995), the Court ruled that prosecutors must disclose any evidence that
could potentially benefit the defendant, even if the defense does not specifically ask for it. This
underscored the importance of fairness and transparency in the legal system, ensuring that
defendants have access to all relevant information to defend themselves properly.
Finally, in United States v. Bagley (1985), the Court emphasized that the prosecution's failure to
disclose favorable evidence to the defense violates due process only if that evidence would likely
have changed the trial's outcome. This decision aimed to ensure that defendants receive a fair
trial while also providing guidance to prosecutors on their obligations regarding evidence
disclosure.
The reason I bring these cases up is to establish the importance of evidence and its use in
revealing if a witness is credible enough to be used by the government, this also includes law
enforcement. An example, the Kyles v. Whitley case from 1995 made it clear that prosecutors
are obligated to disclose any favorable evidence to the defense, which emphasizes the need for
transparency in legal proceedings (Thomure, J.R., 1999). The District Attorney has the authority
to place officers on a “do not call list”, an incident in Philadelphia occurred where an officer
named Reginald Graham, was under a federal investigation for corruption. (PENNSYLVANIA
2018, 2021)
As a direct result of that investigation, many of the officer’s past arrests and convictions were
under scrutiny and overturned. This is a prime example of how important it is to consider the
credibility of all law enforcement officers when it comes to legal outcomes.
6
Disclosing Officer Untruthfulness to the Defense
References
PENNSYLVANIA 2018. (2021, April 19). Retrieved from The National Registry of Exonerations
Group: https://exonerations.newkirkcenter.uci.edu/groups/group-exonerations/
pennsylvania-2018
Berman, T. (2022). United States v. Agurs. Casebriefs United States v Agurs Comments.
M https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/civil-procedure/civil-procedure-keyed-to-yeazell/
discovery/unitedstates-v-agurs/
Bible Gateway passage: Proverbs 19:9 - New International Version. (2022).
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+19%3A9&version=NIV
Kemp, D. S. (2022). Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Justia Law.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/373/83/
Kyles v. Whitley | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis. (2022).
https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-kyles-v-whitley
Pollock, J. M. (2018). Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice + Mindtap
Criminal Justice, 1 Term 6 Months Access Card. Cengage Learning.
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985). (n.d.). Justia Law.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/473/667/
Pollock, J. M. (2018). Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice. 8th ed. Belmont, Calif
7
