Organized Disclosure to Insure Fair Trials

The Brady List [], named for the super-precedent Supreme Court of the United States [SCOTUS] case Brady v Maryland (373 U.S. 83), is one of the broadest decisions in the civil rights movement of the United States. Under the Brady doctrine, prosecutors are obligated to disclose any information on all individuals upon whose testimony the prosecutors will rely. Further applications of Brady in Giglio, Jencks, Abel, and Ruiz have determined that the obligation upon the prosecutor must be a) proactive; and, b) attach at indictment. Unfortunately, criminal trials have reduced to include less than three percent (3%) of all cases and Brady disclosures are almost nonexistent.

Proper disclosures under Brady are inclusive of multiple sources and types of information:

Forty Six (46) states have created some form of Peace Officer Standards & Training [POST] Department that maintain decertification records; and, the International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards & Training [IADLEST] have maintained the National Decertification Index since 2004. The effort to obscure this information from the public eye received millions of dollars of funding by the United States Department of Justice.

All prosecutors in the United States are obligated to maintain an organization Brady [Do-Not-Call] list; or, more accurately a list compiling the Giglio letters that have been delivered to law enforcement organizations and individual officers. Most prosecutor offices do not make this information available publicly and only allow dissemination of the disclosures under the requirement of a Protective Order.

All law enforcement organizations [LEOrgs] are obligated to maintain disciplinary information surrounding police misconduct, public complaints, and use-of-force reports. More than 60% of LEOrgs refuse to maintain any form of database; and, almost none make that information public-facing.

With the advent of technology, private individuals have begun to capture instances of extreme misconduct by law enforcement thereby introducing ‘citizen auditors’ [a.k.a. cop-watchers] into the frey.

All of the above information is subject, without exception or exemption, to the Freedom of Information Act [FOIA]; State Sunshine Laws; the Open Government Act, Initiative, and subsequent Directive(s).

By way of a solution, Level Playing Field Solutions [LPF] has developed a platform-as-a-service called the Brady List. This platform functions as a distributed autonomous organization [DAO] that allows each of the entities to maintain their own respective policy and ‘list’ while compiling the data, jointly and severally, into jurisdictional [Organization, Municipality, County, State, and National] lists. In doing so, LPF has standardized the data and entry requirements to reflect the broadest application of Brady and prepare the information for automated analysis.

Once the raw data is available for analysis a number of organizations benefit from the compilation. Conviction Review/Integrity Units and Civilian Oversight Committees can review individual issues as well as agency or jurisdiction-wide statistics.

Only Brady provides for remedies and sanctions resulting from prosecutors failing, refusing, or neglecting to distribute obligatory disclosures properly and timely. Remedies include granting of a new trial and/or new sentencing, depending on how the testimony of the individuals in question were applied. Sanctions include findings of misconduct for the prosecutors; and, may escalate to include Obstruction of Justice [Title 18 USC] and Destruction of Evidence [Title 11 USC] for both prosecutors and law enforcement.

As an added benefit, the Brady List provides a reasonable alternative to Qualified Immunity in civil cases by compiling actuarial data sufficient for professional liability insurance on an individual-by-individual basis as well as