San Juan County commission hears appeal by terminated deputy over omitted recording, Brady disclosures

The San Juan County Civil Service Commission on a single-day hearing on an appeal of Deputy Jason Gross’s December 2024 termination heard competing accounts of an internal investigation, a short recorded follow-up interview found on Gross’s phone and whether those omissions and related Brady disclosures supported termination.

The commission’s chair opened by explaining the procedure and standard of review, saying the disciplinary authority bears the burden “by preponderance of the evidence” and that the commission would hear the sheriff’s testimony first, then the appellant, allow a 15-minute rebuttal, deliberate in closed session and issue a written decision within 10 days. The chair also reminded parties that any decision may be appealed to San Juan County Superior Court.

Why it matters: the case turns on whether the sheriff’s decision to terminate was supported by substantial evidence and made in good faith. The sheriff’s office says investigators found sustained violations that could disqualify an officer from courtroom testimony; the defense says Gross’s omissions were inadvertent, mitigated by staffing and training shortfalls on island substations, and do not show intentional dishonesty.

In his opening, Jeff James, counsel for the San Juan County Sheriff’s Office and Sheriff Eric Peter, told the commission the agency’s investigation produced documents and audio that together supported sustained policy violations and impeachment disclosures. James pointed the panel to an eight-page memorandum from the prosecuting attorney’s office (identified in the record as Exhibit 3) concluding the original report left prosecutors unable to determine whether a crime had occurred, and to Sergeant Rory Smith’s internal-investigation report (Exhibit 17), which sustained multiple policy violations. James said the sheriff reviewed the investigator’s findings and the audio, then issued the termination letter dated Dec. 17, 2024.

Robert Bullock, attorney for Gross, asked the commission to continue the hearing briefly so he could secure police reports and a district-court recording that his client’s defense needed for effective representation. Bullock said the defense had submitted a public-records request that had not yet been fulfilled, and that he wanted to subpoena Sergeant Rory Smith and obtain the court audio; he estimated two weeks to 30 days would be sufficient. Bullock told the commission he had been retained only days earlier and needed the documents to prepare cross-examination and to test whether the asserted omissions were material.

Opposing counsel and commissioners resisted an open-ended delay. Jeff James said the sheriff had already provided the materials the employer relied on and that the commission’s rules do not require reopening discovery; he argued there was no need for a continuance because the investigative file and exhibits were before the panel. Commissioners asked procedural clarifying questions about subpoena authority and how the clerk’s office handles subpoenas; the clerk (identified as Nadine in the record) was described by defense counsel as newly trained on that office’s process and unable to provide earlier direction.

After discussion the commission declined the defense’s request for an extended postponement and proceeded with the hearing that day. The commission swore witnesses and heard direct and cross-examination, including testimony from Sheriff Eric Peter about the steps that led to Gross’s discharge. The sheriff testified he was notified by the prosecutor’s office about concerns with a deputy’s report, assigned Sergeant Smith to investigate, reviewed the investigator’s report and the audio recordings found on Gross’s phone, and concluded the findings supported termination because of sustained violations and potential Brady issues that would impair the deputy’s credibility in court.

Gross testified on his own behalf. He acknowledged making a short recorded follow-up interview with the reporting party (identified in the record by her first name, Bethany), said he had forgotten to include that recording and to upload a supplemental report, and denied any deliberate attempt to hide the recording. Gross described operational pressures at the Lopez and Orcas substations — overtime, short staffing and limited access to detective resources — and identified personal stressors he said may have contributed to the omission. He said he is willing to undergo additional training and that he has community support submitted with the record.

Defense and employer counsel debated the legal significance of Brady disclosures. Bullock argued being placed on a Brady list is not an automatic career-ender and that the record showed the recording was short and did not materially change the prosecutor’s ability to evaluate the case; he urged reinstatement with corrective measures, not termination. James argued the sustained investigative findings and the sheriff’s reasonable belief in those findings satisfied the preponderance standard and justified termination because an officer whose reports omit material evidence can be impeached and rendered unable to perform patrol duties or testify.

At the hearing’s close the commission said it would deliberate in a closed session and issue a written decision within 10 days. The chair reminded both sides that the commission’s written decision may be appealed to San Juan County Superior Court.

The record: exhibits referenced at the hearing included a prosecuting-attorney memorandum (Exhibit 3, dated Aug. 21, 2024), an Aug. 29, 2024 notice to Gross of an internal investigation (Exhibit 7), a letter from the sheriff to the prosecutor opening an administrative inquiry (Exhibit 12), Sergeant Rory Smith’s investigation summary (Exhibit 17), and the sheriff’s Dec. 17 termination letter (Exhibit 28). Defense counsel said he had not received certain police reports and a district-court hearing recording before the hearing and had asked the clerk and the county prosecutor’s office for guidance about subpoenas and discovery.

What the commission will decide: whether Sheriff Eric Peter’s decision to terminate Deputy Jason Gross was supported by substantial evidence and made in good faith — that is, whether the discharge was “for cause” under the civil-service standard the commission applies. The commission’s written decision will record the panel’s findings, the supporting evidence and any order (reinstatement, modification, or affirmation of termination). Any party may appeal to San Juan County Superior Court.

No formal vote was recorded in open session at the hearing; the commission recessed to deliberate in closed session and will issue a written decision to the parties.

Ending note: the case centers on narrow evidentiary questions — whether a short recording and related report omissions were material to prosecutorial decisions and whether the sheriff’s response was reasonable — and on procedural questions about access to records and subpoena practice in civil-service appeals. The commission’s forthcoming written decision will determine the immediate employment status of a nine-year deputy and may be appealed to the county superior court.