Officer Misconduct Disclosing Officer Untruthfulness to the Defense: Is a Liar's Squad Coming to Your Town?

Officer misconduct scenario

Police officers must not simply be held to the same standards as members of the public. They must be held to a higher standard. This is illustrated in the following scenario: a police officers is found to have searched for pornographic materials on a work computer and when initially confronted about this violation of department policy he lied, claiming he had no idea how the search history of the pornographic materials made its way onto his computer. He only confessed once the link was made between his log-in information and the search. This combination of dishonesty and poor judgment is a compelling argument for the officer's immediate dismissal, despite the fact that he has an otherwise largely unblemished record.

If an ordinary citizen was found to have been searching pornographic websites on a workplace computer, he or she would almost certainly be terminated for ignoring office protocols; the same should be true of a police officer. An officer must be trusted to be honest and forthright as well and this officer not only 'stole' the public's time but also attempted to cover up the crime, which calls into question his credibility as a witness in future investigations. The additional scrutiny under which officers in the present day labor further underlines the need for a higher standard to be upheld when dealing with members of the police force. Trust of the police is at an all-time low and there is a great deal of friction between officers and the public. The office cannot afford to have someone on the roster who places his own interests above the interests of the public.

Evidence of a willingness to withhold evidence to secure a conviction has been linked to corruption in the police force, as manifested in cases such as Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). In this case, the state was found to have actively withheld evidence that could have exonerated the defendant made during another trial, resulting in a wrongful conviction. "Several of those statements were shown to him [the defendant Brady]; but one dated July 9, 1958, in which Boblit admitted the actual homicide, was withheld by the prosecution and did not come to petitioner's notice until after he had been tried, convicted, and sentenced, and after his conviction had been affirmed" (Brady v. Maryland, 1963). Such evidence clearly would have been used to potentially exonerate Brady. The Court agreed that the defendant's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process had been violated. This underlines the extent to which honesty amongst law enforcement is essential. It can very easily result in an overturned conviction and the only way to ensure that officers are honest is to be scrupulous in policing minor violations.

The 'Brady' defense became an accepted part of law, mandating disclosure of all relevant information as a requirement of the justice system. It was invoked again in 1994 in a similar case entitled Kyles v. Whitley in which "petitioner Kyles was convicted of first degree murder by a Louisiana jury and sentenced to death" but it was "revealed on state collateral review that the State had never disclosed certain evidence favorable to him. That evidence included, inter alia, (1) contemporaneous eyewitness statements taken by the police following the murder; (2) various statements made to the police by an informant known as 'Beanie,' who was never called to testify; and (3) a computer print-out of license numbers of cars parked at the crime scene on the night of the murder, which did not list the number of Kyles's car" (Kyles v. Whitley, 1994). It was deemed that the net effect of this evidence suggested a strong probability that Kyle's conviction would not have stood, had it been presented at the time of his trial. "While the inconclusiveness of that evidence does not prove Kyles's innocence, and the jury might have found the unimpeached eyewitness testimony sufficient to convict, confidence that the verdict would have been the same cannot survive a recap of the suppressed evidence and its significance for the prosecution" (Kyles v. Whitley, 1994). What is not disclosed can be just as significant as what is disclosed and if could have resulted in a significantly different decision in favor of the defendant, the conviction must be overturned. Once again, this highlights the need for both honesty and good judgment on the part of law enforcement.

A similar issue regarding disclosure had been found in the case of Giglio v. United States,...

150 (1972), in which the full motivation of a witness was not disclosed. In this case, the prosecution "failed to disclose an alleged promise of leniency made to its key witness in return for his testimony" which clearly cast doubt upon the objectivity of the evidence presented and prevented the defense from engaging in proper cross-examination. The assistant United States attorney who presented the case to the grand jury made the promise to the witness; the attorney that actually tried the case was not aware of this promise but the Court still held that this was no excuse. "The prosecution's duty to present all material evidence to the jury was not fulfilled and constitutes a violation of due process requiring a new trial" (Giglio v. United States, 1972). The witness to whom the promise was made was the defendant's alleged co-conspirator so thus he had a vested interest in implicating the defendant but the jury was prevented from drawing this conclusion based upon the 'sins of omission' of the assistant attorney that made the promise to the witness before the grand jury.
A more recent case regarding the questionable motivations of witnesses is that of United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985). In this case, "Bagley had filed a discovery motion before the trial requesting information about "deals, promises or inducements made to [government] witnesses in exchange for their testimony" which the government did not disclose despite the fact that an offer "had been made to its two principal witnesses, who had assisted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) in conducting an undercover investigation of respondent" (United States v. Bagley, 1985). But the Government did produce signed affidavits by these witnesses recounting their undercover dealing with respondent and concluding with the statement that the affidavits were made without any threats or rewards or promises of reward" (United States v. Bagley, 1985). The guilty verdict was overturned due to the government's failure to "disclose the requested impeachment evidence that respondent could have used to conduct an effective cross-examination of the Government's principal" (United States v. Bagley, 1985).

However, it should be noted that in cases such as United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976), when the evidence which was not disclosed did not materially affect the trial outcome, the verdict was allowed to stand, even if the prosecutor did not disclose all potential evidence that could be used in the defendant's case. "Respondent was convicted of second-degree murder for killing one Sewell with a knife during a fight. Evidence at the trial disclosed, inter alia, that Sewell, just before the killing, had been carrying two knives, including the one with which respondent stabbed him, that he had been repeatedly stabbed, but that respondent herself was uninjured. Subsequently, respondent's counsel moved for a new trial, asserting that he had discovered that Sewell had a prior criminal record (including guilty pleas to charges of assault and carrying a deadly weapon, apparently a knife) that would have tended to support the argument that respondent acted in self-defense, and that the prosecutor had failed to disclose this information to the defense" (United States v. Agurs, 1976). But in this instance, the evidence was so overwhelming against the defendant, the court ruled, that the additional information would have had no impact upon the trial's outcome.

Regardless, this series of cases is an argument for the need for honesty amongst the police force and prosecutors. In these above-cited instances regarding court cases, the state was not attempting to cover up personal harms but rather doing its over-zealous best to secure convictions. The officer surfing the pornographic websites has no such defense. Of course, there is an argument to be made for forgiveness and leniency to some extent but what if his judgment was called into question in a court of law and this blemish was found upon his record? In the larger interests of the justice system, which must always hold sway when the law is concerned, his dismissal is essential.

Police officers remain held to a higher standard than the general public in terms of how they do their jobs. They must place honesty first given that their word is their bond and if mistrusted an entire case's credibility can be shattered. As upset as the officer may be regarding the final decision, it is not his personal employability that is the primary concern but rather the reputation of the department as a whole. The department's honesty cannot be called…