Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Brady‑giglio topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears competing views on "Brady" designations; bill laying over after amendment votes
Summary
Lawmakers and stakeholders debated House File 962 on Feb. 19, a bill to standardize how prosecutors and agencies handle Brady/Giglio designations of law‑enforcement witnesses; the committee adopted a DE1 amendment, rejected a task‑force amendment (A2) 9–10 on roll call, and laid the measure over for further stakeholder work.
House File 962, which addresses procedures for Brady/Giglio disclosures and how prosecutors and agencies manage material affecting witness credibility, was discussed at length in the House Public Safety Committee on Feb. 19. The bill's author (Chair Novotny) sought statutory language to create consistent statewide procedures for disclosure, notice and reconsideration for officers designated under Brady/Giglio case law.
Imran Ali, general counsel for the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, framed the problem in procedural terms and argued that inconsistent practices across counties create adverse consequences for officers and prosecutors. “Under the constitution, due process requires the prosecution to turn over evidence favorable to the accused and material to one's guilt or punishment,” Ali said, and he described examples where officers learned later they had been identified as Brady without prior notice and had limited ability to challenge the designation.
Testimony from multiple stakeholders reflected a mix of procedural concerns and institutional roles. Kevin Beck, representing a privately represented officer in an arbitration, said an officer’s 20‑plus year career ended after a county attorney designated him as Brady soon after a political turnover; Beck described arbitration and court decisions that left the officer without a practical remedy. “He was designated Brady by a county attorney who was newly elected. Coincidentally, he had campaigned for her opponent. 5 weeks after she was sworn in, she designated him as a Brady officer… The city said, what were the reasons for it? The response they got back was, 'I've made my decision. I'm not changing it.' City had no choice. They fired him,” Beck testified.
Stakeholder groups including the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association, the Minnesota Sheriffs Association and the Minnesota County Attorneys Association described ongoing work to develop standards and acknowledged the issue’s complexity. Brad Johnson (Anoka County Attorney) detailed an MCAA work group that has been meeting monthly and drafting best practices, and John Hollitz (St. Louis County) emphasized that prosecutors’ duty is to “seek review and disclose data as required by the constitution” and that Brady should not be used to prevent legitimate testimony or to produce an indiscriminate ‘‘naughty list.”
Representative Mueller offered an A2 amendment to create a task force to study the issue; the committee rejected that amendment on a roll call, 9 ayes to 10 nays. The chair then moved and the committee adopted the DE1 amendment (voice vote) and laid the bill over for further stakeholder work. Committee members emphasized the need to include city attorneys, the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and public defenders in ongoing discussions.
No final statutory language or definitive statewide procedure was adopted on Feb. 19; members directed continued negotiations among prosecutors, law‑enforcement organizations and defense counsel before the measure returns to committee.
