1
Letter to the Mayor
I was recently made aware by the Deputy Chief of Police of an officer’s misconduct in
the patrol division. He used one of the department’s computers to access pornographic websites,
and this was confirmed by a computer crimes analyst who found that his log-on password was
used to access these websites. He has been with our department for fifteen years. His record is
clean and was only disciplined for an at-fault accident a decade ago. Although he did not admit
to his wrongdoings at first, he then confessed his actions after the computer crimes analyst
confirmed that he used his password to access the websites. After he confessed, he said it would
never happen again. Because of his virtually clean record, he will receive disciplinary action
instead of termination. If this were to happen again along with any other misconduct, he would
be terminated. In this letter, I will discuss Supreme Court cases that shaped the trial process
relating to the credibility of witnesses and law enforcement officers and evidence to the defense
in correlation with the misconduct of this officer.
Supreme Court Cases
A variety of Supreme Court cases have set precedents regarding exculpatory evidence,
witness credibility, and the prosecution’s responsibility to disclose information that is helpful to
the defense. In 1963, Brady v. Maryland declared that it is mandatory for a prosecutor to disclose
all exculpatory evidence to the defendant. John Brady and Charles Boblit were accused of first-
degree murder and were tried independently. Because of this, Brady was unaware of Boblit’s
confession of the murder. The prosecutor did not make the defense aware of Boblit’s confession,
which resulted in a retrial for Brady. If the prosecutor does not disclose evidence to the defense,
due process is violated and is considered a Brady violation. According to Pollock (2019), Brady
violations are one of the main forms of prosecutorial misconduct (p. 272). Although Brady v.
2
Maryland did not directly involve a police officer, it set a foundation for future court cases that I
will discuss later in this letter.
If this officer were to testify in court, it must be made known to the defense that he is not
credible because he did not come forward and tell the truth when first confronted with the
allegation. Because this fact could be useful to the defense, the prosecutor must disclose this
information about the officer’s credibility. This could result in a different trajectory of the case.
From a biblical standpoint, all truth must be made known. Proverbs 12:22 (ESV) states, “Lying
lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who act faithfully are his delight.” The prosecution
must be honest to the defense about the lack of credibility of the officer because of his
untruthfulness when he was encountered about the computer crime. However, the officer should
have been truthful in the first place about his wrongdoings. Honesty and integrity are priorities
for not only our department’s ethics but my personal ethics and values as well. Having
truthfulness within a department is beneficial for working together as a team and encourages
honesty among officers.
Another case where due process was violated was Giglio v. United States in 1972. This
case focused more on the credibility of witnesses, as I briefly discussed in the last case. In Giglio
v. United States (1972), bank teller Robert Taliento was accused of giving John Giglio a bank
customer’s signature cards. When Taliento first went to court to testify, Taliento was promised a
deal from a U.S. Attorney that granted him immunity if he were to testify against Giglio. The
defense was not made aware of the immunity given to Taliento, and a retrial took place because
due process was violated. Hogan (2022) explained that material for impeachment must be
disclosed which is now known as Giglio material. The Supreme Court also made clear that it is
the duty of the prosecutor to search for the credibility of witnesses and not just present what they
3
are aware of. Similar to Brady v. Maryland, this case did not have a law enforcement officer as a
subject but can relate the issue of witness credibility with officer credibility.
When I correlated the Brady v. Maryland case with the officer, I mentioned that he would
not be found credible in court. Linking the officer's situation to the case of Giglio v. United
States, prosecutors must search for the officer’s credibility if they are not already made aware of
it. If the defense is unaware of the lack of credibility, the prosecution has an advantage, and an
unfair trial will take place. This officer now has a record of lying and cannot be counted as fully
credible. Again, I value honesty and integrity as part of my ethics, and they should be upheld by
others in the criminal justice system. The American Correctional Association outlines that
members should demonstrate honesty as part of their formal ethics (Pollock, 2019, p. 354). I
believe that if people are lying about small things, they may continue to lie and will lie about big
things as well. I base this on Luke 16:10 (ESV) which says, “One who is faithful in a very little
is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much.”
United States v. Agurs 427 U.S. 97 (1976) established that evidence that is material to a
case must be disclosed. Linton (2023) says, “United States v. Agurs, another case dealing with
incentivized testimony, the central question was whether the defendant had received a fair trial
under Brady’s materiality standard” (p. 423). Linda Agurs was convicted of second-degree
murder of James Sewell who checked into a motel together as a married couple. Sewell was seen
with two knives on him when they checked in. After motel employees heard Agurs screaming,
they found Sewell with several cuts on his body. Sewell later died, and Agurs was taken to court
claiming she acted out in self-defense. After she was sentenced to prison, the defense counsel
was made aware of Sewell’s prior aggressive behavior. The defense counsel did not request
exculpatory evidence believing that it would not be necessary. She asked for a retrial and was
4
denied by the United States District Court, but the United States Court of Appeals ruled that the
evidence of Sewell’s aggressive behavior was material to the case. Ultimately, the Supreme
Court ruled that although all material evidence is to be disclosed, material that is not related to
the case does not need to be disclosed.
If a prosecutor discovers that an officer has been dishonest, they must present this
information in court. The prosecutor may be tempted to keep quiet about the officer’s dishonesty
to support their side. Regarding the dishonest officer, his lack of credibility will be known in
court and may put the prosecution in a difficult position. Pollock (2019) stresses the importance
of having honest expert witnesses because there will be no ethical issues (p. 278). Having ethical
participants in the courtroom will result in a fair trial. Prosecutors must be fair with all
discovered evidence because their goal is justice. Proverbs 21:15 (ESV) says, “When justice is
done, it brings joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.”
In 1995, Curtis Kyles was charged with first-degree murder of Delores Dye in a grocery
store parking lot. James Joseph, who changed his name and inconsistent statements, reported the
murder to the police. When taken to court, Kyles claimed that the state did not disclose evidence
favorable to him even after his attorney asked for exculpatory evidence. The prosecution claimed
that no exculpatory evidence was present. After his conviction and sentencing, evidence
favorable to Kyles was found such as eyewitness statements, James Joseph’s, also known as
“Beanie,” inconsistent statements, and a list of license numbers of the cars that were at the crime
scene after the murder took place. The state trial court would not give relief, and the State
Supreme Court denied Kyles’s discretionary review. Kyles claimed that the decision of his case
was a violation of Brady v. Maryland. After filing for habeas corpus, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit affirmed Kyles’s petition even though the district court denied it. The
5
Supreme Court granted certiorari. In Kyles v. Whitley (1995), the foundation of the state’s
argument was based on suppressed statements of eyewitnesses. Because the prosecution did not
disclose evidence to the defense, they had a strong argument which resulted in the defense
having a weak argument. All evidence that is material is to be disclosed.
Like the other cases previously discussed, exculpatory evidence is to be searched for and
presented in court. Although this case did not directly involve a police officer, it can be applied
presenting the credibility of an officer as opposed to hiding the truth about their honesty. The
credibility of the officer is considered material and can change the outcome of the trial if he were
one of the main witnesses. It is ethical for everyone who is part of a trial to be truthful about their
statements. In Kyles v. Whitley, material evidence was suppressed and would have drastically
changed the verdict. This officer who lied about his allegation can never be credible for future
testimonies. It must be made known to the defense that he was untruthful about past convictions
because it can help determine the verdict of the case. Proverbs 24:24-25 (ESV) says, “Whoever
says to the wicked, ‘You are in the right,’ will be cursed by peoples, abhorred by nations, but
those who rebuke the wicked will have delight, and a good blessing will come upon them.”
In United States v. Bagley (1985), Hughes A. Bagley, Jr. was charged with the violation of
narcotics and firearms statutes at a federal level. Before his trial, he had requested that any deals
that were made between the government and witnesses be made known to him. The government
stated that no deals were made with anyone but showed affidavits for two witnesses who were to
testify without anything in return. These witnesses worked for state law enforcement and agreed
to help the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) with the investigation of Bagley.
Bagley was found guilty on the charges for only the narcotics in the District Court. Later Bagley
received contracts the witnesses signed from the ATF saying they were to obtain money for
6
testifying against Bagley and providing information about him. Bagley claimed that due process
was violated according to Brady v. Maryland. This case focused on the material needed for the
impeachment of law enforcement officers. Clafton (2020) emphasized that impeachment
evidence could be the determining factor of guilt or innocence of the defense. Bagley then filed a
motion regarding his sentence and was denied by the District Court because they did not believe
that the evidence of the contracts would have changed the verdict. The Court of Appeals reversed
the motion saying that the evidence that was not disclosed could have produced a fairer trial.
This is the first case discussed that directly involves law enforcement officers. The
officers were paid to testify, but the government did not disclose to the defense any deals or
promises made with the officers. It is imperative for the prosecution to disclose any information
regarding contracts or immunity given to witnesses because this is considered impeachment
evidence for officers. Pollock (2019) expresses that sometimes prosecutors allow their
informants to lie about the deal made with them (p. 285). This relates to the ethical issue of
dishonesty. Being dishonest about anything, especially in court, will cause more harm than good.
If our officer were given immunity or compensation to testify in court, the prosecutor must
inform the defense. Because he is not credible, the risk of his dishonesty about a deal with the
prosecution can arise. As Proverbs 16:28 (ESV) says, “A dishonest man spreads strife, and a
whisperer separates close friends.”
Conclusion
Accompanying my decision to not terminate the officer but give him disciplinary action,
his future reputation is also tainted. Along with suspension and reduced pay, he will not be
viewed as credible because of his dishonesty. Because of these previous Supreme Court cases,
his lack of credibility will be made known to the defense and is considered impeachment
7
evidence if testifying in court. These cases determined that any evidence favorable to the defense
is material and is a necessary part of the trial. The officer’s reputation is flawed which might
influence the trajectory of a trial. This is one of the consequences that follows his misconduct.
Discipline is essential for growth, so the officer deserves disciplinary action to improve and learn
from his mistakes. Proverbs 10:17 (ESV) says, “Whoever heeds instruction is on the path to life,
but he who rejects reproof leads others astray.” It is important for our officers to be ethical with
their decisions and actions and to remember what consequences could come from misconduct.
8
References
Clafton, R. E. (2020). A Material Change to Brady: Rethinking Brady v.
Maryland, Materiality, and Criminal Discovery. Journal of Criminal Law &
Criminology, 110(2), 307-348. https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?
url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/material-change-brady-rethinking-v-
maryland/docview/2386940670/se-2
Hogan, T. P. (2022). An Unfinished Symphony: Giglio v. United States and Disclosing
Impeachment Material About Law Enforcement Officers. Criminal Justice, 36(4), 11-22.
https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/trade-
journals/unfinished-symphony-giglio-v-united-states/docview/2633338790/se-2
Linton, C. (2023). LIKE PUTTING LIPSTICK ON A PIG: WHY THE HISTORY OF CRIME
CONTROL SHOULD COMPEL THE PROHIBITION OF INCENTIVIZED WITNESS
TESTIMONY UNDER FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS PRINCIPLES. Journal of
Criminal Law & Criminology, 113(2), 391-430.
https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-
journals/like-putting-lipstick-on-pig-why-history-crime/docview/2834506855/se-2
Pollock, J. M. (2019). Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice (10th ed.). Cengage
Custom Publishing.
The Holy Bible. (2001). English Standard Version. Crossway Bibles.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
