![]() Rule 9 does not govern a prosecutor’s Brady obligation ![]() This requires a comprehensive review of criminal convictions in Hennepin County. The systemic Brady violations over the past decade undermines the public confidence of all convictions even those that followed the letter of the law. Now that we know that prosecutors did not have any Brady data from 2020 through at least 2021, and that Brady data was incomplete years before that, any criminal convictions from Minneapolis and Hennepin County are suspect. “Of particular concern is the fact that the City failed to provide County prosecutors with any updated impeachment information about MPD officers from the beginning of 2020 through at least the fall of 2021.”ĭespite these damning findings, the new HCAO Brady policy does not mention any sort of look-back or conviction review. Even when Minneapolis implemented a new internal process in 2017, there were still major gaps in obtaining and disseminating Brady data. The Minnesota Department of Human Rights found that Minneapolis procedures for gathering Brady data and providing it to the HCAO were “woefully lacking” before 2017. This is consistent with the Minnesota Rule 11 of Criminal Procedure, which requires discovery to be completed before the Omnibus Hearing. They should review Brady material when making charging decisions, or, at the latest, when preparing discovery for the pre-trial Omnibus Hearing. ![]() Then, prosecutors must delve into those files at the outset of each criminal case. Whatever the receptacle, the HCAO must keep police misconduct information up to date and easily accessible for staff. This could be creating and maintaining a “Brady list”, an internal database, excel spreadsheet, or even a manila folder with newspaper clippings. The HCAO can remedy this problem by establishing a continuous process for gathering, reviewing, and disseminating police misconduct data. This means that even if a case proceeds to trial, an individual accused of a crime may be denied impeachment evidence about an officer who had a role in their arrest because a prosecutor simply removed that officer from the witness list.” “Furthermore, in preparation for criminal trials, prosecutors will also sometimes choose to simply remove a police officer from a witness list instead of producing impeachment evidence related to that officer. The Minnesota Department of Human Rights notes another problem with this timing: By waiting until an officer is subpoenaed, this means that most criminal defendants will decide to give up their trial rights and enter a guilty plea before examining crucial evidence in their cases. Most criminal matters are resolved by plea bargain before any witnesses are called to testify. The HCAO does not start looking for Brady material until an officer is “subpoenaed to testify in court.” This is too little, too late. Subpoena is too late to look for Brady material To meet their Constitutional obligation, the HCAO must proactively gather all evidence of police misconduct. This is a major gap in the new HCAO Brady policy. The policy should include as Brady material any sustained violation even if the sanction imposed is not defined as discipline by the law enforcement agency. “Disciplinary information” does not encompass the universe of Brady material that exists for certain police officers. He was sentenced to decades in federal prison for assaulting a 14 year boy, but he did not receive any discipline-not even a reprimand-for such egregious misconduct. Derek Chauvin is the most notorious example of lax discipline policies. The MPD rarely issues discipline, even when internal investigations sustain a complaint of misconduct. City leaders and the MPD doubled-down on making discipline optional and keeping this data from the view of the public and the courts by codifying the practice of “coaching” as a non-disciplinary and “nonpublic” sanction for a sustained violation in 2022. The new policy states that “it is now an expectation that law enforcement agencies disclose to the HCAO any disciplinary information proactively and voluntarily” (emphasis added). The Hennepin County Attorney’s Office’s new Brady policy released in mid-October does not pass constitutional muster and fails to take the steps needed to ensure justice for defendants in Hennepin County.ĭisciplinary files do not capture most police misconduct in Minneapolis In our August opinion piece, Brady is a Constitutional Imperative-here is how to fix it in Minnesota, we outlined a few basic steps to improve Brady disclosure.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |