Can I please have some input from other prosecutors on requiring law enforcement investigators to sign-off on the following statement when filing cases:

"I [fill in the blank] am the investigator/officer responsible for the above named case that is being submitted for prosecution. I have personally reviewed the case and all evidence in the possession of my department at the time of filing this case, including evidence, if any, showing that the named accused did not commit the offense charged. All evidence regarding the defendant and the offense charged is provided and/or properly documented with this submission."

Your thoughts will be appreciated.

Do you require such statements from prosecutors? How about getting one from the defense attorney regarding effective assistance? And the judge in following the rules of evidence? As long as we are distrusting everyone...

So in other words, you want a letter from them, signed, saying nothing more than they did their JOB. Does that mean that you will also present a similar letter for yourself surrounding every prosecution you're involved with? How about we all just have letters saying, "I did my job", and sign them?

MW - I get where you are coming from. With the number of cases (reported and otherwise) that discuss Brady violations, it seems to me like you are looking for a CYA approach to making sure that the law enforcement agencies are not just bringing you evidence of guilt, but also anything that might be considered exculpatory. While this is a reasonable and admirable goal, I think your approach should be to make clear to the agencies that you deal with that you expect ALL of the evidence to be presented to your office, for several reasons. First, you need to be able to make an accurate analysis of the strength of the case, and second, if you decide to prosecute, you need to be able to represent to the court and the defendant that you have sought information on exculpatory evidence, and that it has been provided. I had a case a number of years ago where there was a criimestoppers tip alleging that another person had committed a burglary. NOTHING about that was in the offense reports, etc. that we got the the sheriff's office - they had a confession from the defendant, and decided that was good enough. When the case went to trial, the defendant recanted, and we learned of the crimestoppers call when the dispatcher was called as a witness.

So, I respect your goal, and do not see this as an "I did my job" statement, but as a way to make sure that you are getting COMPLETE case files. I would not do it the way you have suggested, but would consider making this topic part of a training (assuming your local DA's office provides at least some training to local LE agencies) or ask the Sheriff and the Chiefs and the DPS sergeant to make it clear in their policies that all evidence is to be included in cases submitted for prosecution. The method you propose makes it easier to go to the judge when a Brady violation is alleged, but fosters distrust between your office and the investigators. Emphasize teamwork, and let them know that your goal is to have the best possible result and avoid reversals and re-trials.

Thank you for your constructive comments, Larry. Snide remarks don't offer much assistance, and they make me reluctant to seek assistance in this forum.

I certainly agree that training would be the best possible approach. The sad and long-standing truth, however, is that those officers who most need the training are the ones who are least likely to get it. And the ones who most readily seek it out are the ones who least need it. (Perhaps that is the case in many professions.) It's a vicious cycle. That has been the experience in my office, at least.

Surprisingly, Brady is only one consideration behind this idea. It is not the driving force. The driving force is the repeated occassions of learning only by accident that certain evidence exists, i.e., from passing comments in witness meetings shortly before trial, or officers' last minute responses to defense-issued subpoenas, or even during trial on cross examination. So you are correct that the goal is to make sure I have a complete case file.

My remarks were included to give you some idea of what kind of reaction you might get to requiring such a statement. In my opinion, requiring the statement would simply create immediate hostility and distrust from law enforcement. In at least one community, it has resulted in distracting media coverage of the policy and the hostility between law enforcement and the prosecutor's office.

Every DA's office suffers from the failure of law enforcement to provide full and complete information in every case. Only by long-term education and ongoing training can the relationship improve.

I occasionally teach the Arrest, Search, and Seizure course for the DPS Recruit Class. I ALWAYS teach Brady and Giglio. I emphasize to the recruits that they need to give the prosecutor everything they know about the case and the suspect--good or bad, because if they don't, not only could a conviction be reversed, but there is always the chance that an innocent person could wind up in prison. I have to agree with JB--education, education, education.

J Ansolabehere

I didn't mean for my particular comment to be snide, though I can see how it was after re-reading it.

The problem is we hear this sort of thing from DAs offices a lot, but God forbid you approach them about things THEY do on THEIR end that are equally representative of a lack of knowledge and trainig that cause drawbacks. There is also continuing training and instruction for prosecuting attorneys, and there are plenty that are woefully lacking in that. Yes, the same is true of law enforcement. The point being that both parts of the equation need to recognize this and do what is necessary to make it better.

Another piece of paper to add to an already-existing mountain of the stuff seems unnecessary. I would think maybe a good training session, or even a good meeting, with the agency would help. Discuss with them the importance of properly collecting, tagging, and maintaining ALL evidence, and encourage them to seek continued training if necessary to help.

Again, my apologies for my previous comment. It was a knee-jerk reaction, but I suspect that may be exactly what you'll get and you need to be ready for that. I get where you're coming from, but I think it could be done more constructively and will be better-received.

MW,

As a peace officer, I did somewhat have the reaction that the prosecutors have pointed out when I read your post. Although, I understand what your intentions are (because I have been a DA or CA investigator for 13 years), that idea or statement will not be well received. Please remember that officers are not taught what or how prosecutors are, nor are they versed in Brady, what is exculpatory or heck even what an excited utterance is (for the most part). They don't know the rules of evidence or the ramifications for a conviction if something isn't documented or turned over.

Have you asked your investigator or an investigator that works in your office for suggestions on how to handle this with local LE? He/she can possibly provide some valuable local insight and help in training/educating the various agencies. Afterall, they probably came from one of your local agencies and may have an idea on how to approach it. Perhaps during shift briefings so that all officers will get the training.

One thing we (Co Atty's office) have now implemented in our office is to send an email each day to the various agencies listing the arrests made by their officers from the previous day. This email goes to the Records department, communications division (911 calls and radio traffic), and evidence division. We worked with each agency and division within that upon receipt of this email, they prepare any evidence or documentation within their division on the arrested person and forward that to our office within 7-10 days. (We have prosecutors and staff that go to the jail each morning and review the arrests from the previous day - that's how the list is generated).

It's not fool proof, but has helped get us stuff that might have been overlooked or thought that "someone else was going to get it".

As with any profession, some will never care to get it right. But the vast majority in LE do care, but are afraid to reach out to learn your world (that role of the prosecutor) for fear of being ridiculed, laughed at or talked down to. Being willing to educate, one at a time if necessary, will go far. That one officer you explain it too in a teamwork setting will respect you and pass along that respect to other officers who will then begin to reach out as well for the knowledge that you possess to help them make their case better. You need them, but they need you too since our background, training and education are greatly different.

If I can help, please let me know, I'd be glad too. Afterall, I'm part of a statewide team.

As a young lawyer on the dark-side, I was taught that each statement in the prosecutor's file has something that can be used for cross and that my job was to find it and use it to create a reasonable doubt. I see uses for a statement like this for cross by the defense: Asking each officer if they were required to sign a statement and then suggesting in closing that maybe individual officers are hiding evidence because obviously the prosecutor thinks the lead officer may be prone to concealing evidence. Or just suggesting that the officer, knowing that they would have to sign the statement, turned a blind eye and did not secure exculpatory evidence to assure that no such evidence would ever be in the possession of their department. I am sure there are other lines of cross that could be developed.

Just curious but what is the reason behind this?

All well-reasoned and well-considered thoughts on the matter. Thank you for the input. And, again, I agree that training is the best bet. But we have trouble even leading the horse to the water. And with constant turnover in some LE agencies, and ingrained hostility towards prosecutors in others, we are beginning to feel like we are at wits' end. I'm not painting every LE officer with the same brush. We have some damn fine ones. But the sins of a few . . .

JB, you indicate that this has been tried before, and it received some media coverage. Can you tell me where? I'd like to discuss the situation with folks who were involved.

"Please remember that officers are not taught what or how prosecutors are, nor are they versed in Brady, what is exculpatory or heck even what an excited utterance is (for the most part). They don't know the rules of evidence or the ramifications for a conviction if something isn't documented or turned over."

That is a really broad statement that is entirely untrue. There ARE some officers who don't understand such concepts, but they are fewer and more far between than you indicate. These are basic evidentiary principles that we MUST know on the street actually to do our jobs correctly and efficiently.

I think the original poster hit the nail on the head with her last post - better training and communication is the best solution in the end.