Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Brady Giglio Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves statewide process for Brady/Giglio disclosures and review
Summary
The committee advanced House Bill 1471, which would require prosecutors and law enforcement to create standard procedures for identifying and reviewing Giglio/Brady credibility issues for officers and other recurring witnesses; the measure passed 13-0.
The House Courts and Criminal Code Committee unanimously approved House Bill 1471, a bill to establish a standardized process for prosecutors and law enforcement to identify, document and review Giglio/Brady credibility issues for witnesses who appear frequently in prosecutions.
Proponents said the bill fills a patchwork of county practices by creating notice and reconsideration procedures so prosecutors meet discovery obligations while providing officers with a route to contest placement on local Giglio lists.
Representative Stierwald, the bill sponsor, told the committee the measure “creates a duty on the law enforcement to notify the prosecutor of potential Giglio matters” and sets a process allowing an officer to request reconsideration if placed on a list that could affect the officer’s ability to testify. Courtney Curtis of the Indiana Prosecuting Attorney’s Council (IPAC) described the proposal as a difficult balancing act between prosecutorial discovery duties and officers’ employment interests.
Courtney Curtis explained the legal backdrop: under Brady v. Maryland prosecutors must disclose exculpatory evidence and, following Giglio, material that bears on a witness’s credibility must be disclosed so a jury can evaluate testimony. “When we have a individual witness…that's easy for us to know. We don't need to keep a list of that. But police officers and lab techs are witnesses that we're gonna see on a regular basis, and we can't forget this fact or this obligation to turn over this type of evidence,” Curtis said.
Law-enforcement groups including the Indiana State Fraternal Order of Police and the Indiana Association of Chiefs of Police supported the bill as a framework that would provide both disclosure to defense counsel and due-process procedures for officers. John Kautzman, litigation counsel for the state FOP, said the bill is “a desperately needed area that requires legislation” and that some language will likely need future clarification as prosecutors and agencies implement standards.
Defense counsel also supported the concept in testimony, with Zach Stock of the public-defender community urging more centralization and detail but backing the bill’s goal to provide defenders access to Giglio material. The committee voted 13-0 to send the bill forward.
